Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01815/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of 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

SOUTHLAND HOME MORTGAGE,

LLC AND/OR ITS SUCCESSORS

AND/OR ASSIGNEES IN

INTEREST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1815-GPC(RBB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

vs.

VIDAL ZAVALA, an individual,

DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendant.

On July 14, 2016, Defendant Vidal Zavala filed a notice of removal of this

unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San

Diego County. Having reviewed Defendant’s notice ofremoval, the Court findsit does

not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS the action to state court. 

Discussion

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l

Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power authorized by

the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.

534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject

matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,

- 1 - [16cv1815-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:16-cv-01815-GPC-MDD Document 4 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090,

1092 (9th Cir.1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A

state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in

federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 (1987); Duncan v.

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the

basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal

law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends

on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal.

v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983).

Alternatively, a federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving

citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the

‘well-pleaded complaintrule,’which providesthatfederal jurisdiction exists onlywhen

a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A review of the state court

summons and complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a unlawful detainer

claim under California state law. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) 

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal,

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In the notice of removal, Defendant alleges that the Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to a federal question. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) Defendant contends that there is

a federal question based on a notice which expressly references and incorporates the

“Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (Id. at 2-3.) She

- 2 - [16cv1815-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:16-cv-01815-GPC-MDD Document 4 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

alleges that thisstatute will be drawn into the issuesin this case because Plaintiff failed

to comply with the alleged 90 day notice period prior to filing any state eviction

proceeding. (Id.) 

Defendant’s alleged federal “claim” is actually a defense or counterclaimagainst

Plaintiff. However, defenses and counterclaims are not considered in evaluating

whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff's complaint. Vaden v.

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon

an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075

(9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claimdoes not confer jurisdiction

on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated

in the plaintiff's complaint.”). As such, Defendant’s allegation does not establish

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction and the Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior

Court of the State of California for San Diego County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [16cv1815-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:16-cv-01815-GPC-MDD Document 4 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3