Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00854/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00854-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345fc Foreclosure

---

1

18cv0854 DMS (JLB)

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

TALLEN, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RASHON SELMON, DOES 1 TO 10 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv0854 DMS (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Defendant Rashon Selmon, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action 

from state court under 28 U.S.C. §1441. Defendant contends the Court has federal question 

jurisdiction pursuant to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12 

U.S.C.A. § 5220.

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It 

is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Abrego Abrego v. The 

Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). Consistent with the limited jurisdiction 

of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, 

Case 3:18-cv-00854-DMS-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv0854 DMS (JLB)

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

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 

537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); O'Halloran v. University of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 

1988). “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

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

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Here, Defendant alleges there is federal question jurisdiction because “[t]he 

Complaint in this action was filed in State Court as artful pleading” and “pleadings 

intentionally fail[ed] to allege compliance with the PTFA.” (Defendant’s Notice of 

Removal at 3, ECF. No. 1.) However, the Complaint does not allege a federal question 

artfully pled as a state-law claim. Indeed, it is a straightforward form complaint for 

unlawful detainer. Plaintiff’s cause of action arises solely under state law, namely the 

unlawful detainer statutes set forth in California Civil Code § 1940 et. seq. and California 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161 et. seq. (ECF. No. 1-2.) The PTFA, which Defendant

relies upon as the basis for federal question jurisdiction, pertains to foreclosure actions, not

unlawful detainer claims, which is the only claim alleged in the Complaint. The PTFA 

was “framed in terms of “protections” for tenants, suggesting that it was intended to 

provide a defense in state eviction proceedings rather than a basis for offensive suits in 

federal court.” Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n., 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Moreover, “it is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the 

basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption [.]” Caterpillar Inc., 482 

U.S. at 392. Accordingly, Defendant has not met his burden as the removing party to 

establish federal jurisdiction. 

"If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons set 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00854-DMS-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv0854 DMS (JLB)

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

out above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted, and this action is REMANDED to the 

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego - Central Division. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00854-DMS-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3