Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01321/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

THE PAGNI GROUP LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1321-MMA (RBB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

vs.

ANTHONY TRUJILLO, et al,

Defendants.

On March 5, 2013, Plaintiff The Pagni Group LLC filed a verified complaint

for unlawful detainer against Defendants Anthony Trujillo, et al., in San Diego

County Superior Court. See Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1-1. On June 7, 2013,

Defendant Anthony Trujillo, proceeding pro se, removed the action to this Court. 

Id. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to

state court. 

DISCUSSION

A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court by the defendant or

defendants if the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction

over that suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th

Cir. 1977). The existence of federal jurisdiction must be determined on the face of

the plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

(1987). A “cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well

pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.

- 1 - 13cv1321

Case 3:13-cv-01321-MMA-RBB Document 2 Filed 06/07/13 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

Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). A well pleaded complaint must establish “either

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

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 

The Court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a party, and the party who

invoked the federal court’s removal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th

Cir. 1988), citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). The

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and any doubt is

resolved in favor of remand. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988);

Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal

question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Trujillo alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,12 U.S.C. 5201, et seq., a federal

statute, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution. See Notice of Removal. However, the Court sua sponte

must consider whether jurisdiction actually exists. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that a court is required to consider

sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction). 

Here, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no “federal question is

presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482

U.S. at 392. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a single claim for unlawful detainer, a

cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions

are strictly within the province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v.

- 2 - 13cv1321

Case 3:13-cv-01321-MMA-RBB Document 2 Filed 06/07/13 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

Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“the

complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely

a matter of state law”). Thus, although Trujillo asserts this action implicates, inter

alia, a provision of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220,

the face of Plaintiff’s complaint makes clear that no basis for federal question

jurisdiction exists. Furthermore, Trujillo’s purported federal “claims” are actually

potential counterclaims against Plaintiff. However, 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”).

In addition, diversity jurisdiction is absent. For a federal court to exercise

diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy requirement must be met. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff’s complaint clearly demonstrates that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of attorneys fees and costs, as

Plaintiff seeks limited civil damages totaling less than $10,000. In addition, the

parties are both citizens of the state of California. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is

lacking. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter and therefore REMANDS the case to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1321

Case 3:13-cv-01321-MMA-RBB Document 2 Filed 06/07/13 Page 3 of 3