Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00198/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION; its assignees and/or

successors,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILDER IVAN CALDERON, and DOES 1-

10, Inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.13cv0198 AJB (MDD)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 3); AND 

2) SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION

TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 1)

On January 25, 2013, Wilder Ivan Calderon (“Calderon”) removed an unlawful detainer action

filed in San Diego Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) The removal was based on federal

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). (Id. at ¶ 19.) Along with the notice of

removal, Calderon submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 3.) For the reasons set

forth below, the Court GRANTS Calderon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but sua sponte

REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court whether by original

process, removal or otherwise, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if

1 13cv0198 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00198-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the party is granted in forma pauperis status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.

1999). The Court may grant in forma pauperis status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In the present case, having

reviewed Defendant Calderon’s motion and declaration in support of the motion, the Court finds

Calderon has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169

F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Calderon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting in forma pauperis status, the Court must dismiss the case if the complaint “fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to

state a claim). Likewise, remand is necessary if it appears from the face of the complaint that the court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

the first instance.”). Here, after a review of the Complaint and Defendant Calderon’s notice of removal,

the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over

matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court only if the

district court could have original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes

are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countywide Home Loans Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031,

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party

seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, federal jurisdiction

must be rejected. Id. at 567. 

Defendant Calderon’s notice of removal alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over the action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1337 (antitrust violations) and 1345 (United States as

2 13cv0198 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00198-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a Plaintiff), as well as 15 U.S.C. §§ 45 (unfair competition) and 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act). (Notice of Removal ¶ 19.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil

actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded

complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Id. Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction simply because defendant may

present a federal defense to the claim. Id.

After a review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff is bringing a single cause of action

against Defendant Calderon for unlawful detainer following a foreclosure sale pursuant to California

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a(b)(3). (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1, Compl.) Thus, because this is a purely state

law cause of action, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and must remand the matter.

See Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. Lam, 2011 WL 781243 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011);

Galileo Fin. v. Park, 2009 WL 3157411 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a

claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of

the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”). Nonetheless, in an

attempt to support federal question jurisdiction, Defendant Calderon argues removal is proper because

the Complaint is attempting to assert securities claims in an unlawful detainer action, which necessarily

preempts state law. The Court is not persuaded. Federal question jurisdiction is established from the

face of the complaint, and cannot be asserted based solely on potential defenses the defendant may

allege in opposition. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Fannie Mae v. Brooks, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

30627, at *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (rejecting defendant’s contention that a defense under the

PTFA is sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction and remanding the action for lack of

jurisdiction). Accordingly, because Plaintiff is only seeking return of certain real property currently in

Calderon’s possession, the Court finds it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter.

In addition, the face of the complaint clearly shows that this Court does not possess diversity

jurisdiction over the matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction there must be

“complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement of $75,000 must be

met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 267 (1806). “[W]hen a state-court

3 13cv0198 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00198-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold,

the ‘party seeking removal must prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.’ ”

Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, both the Complaint and

the notice of removal state that Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is an entity lawfully

conducting business in California, and that Calderon is a California resident residing in the County of

San Diego. (Compl. ¶¶ 2,3; Notice of Removal ¶¶ 2, 3.) Thus, the parties are not completely diverse

and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Calderon’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis, but sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court, East County Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 29, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

4 13cv0198 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-00198-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 4