Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01669/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01669-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

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

- 1 - 11CV1669

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV1669 JLS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

(ECF No. 2.) 

vs.

DAVID KATZ and ELIZABETH KATZ,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants

David Katz and Elizabeth Katz in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego on

March 25, 2011. (ECF No. 1 at 7–10.) Soon thereafter, Defendants filed a notice of removal in

federal court. (Id. at 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. No. 2.) 

Also before the Court is Defendants’ opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 5.) After consideration,

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have

original jurisdiction,” a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 28 U.S.C.

§1441(a). However, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Therefore, “[f]ederal

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

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

removing party bears the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 3:11-cv-01669-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 08/26/11 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 11CV1669

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction encompasses federal question jurisdiction and

diversity jurisdiction. The Court discusses each in turn. 

To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court looks to the plaintiff’s

complaint. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 US 826, 830 (2002). The

Court does not consider the defendant’s answer, defenses, or counterclaims. Id. at 831. In this

case, Plaintiff’s underlying claim is an unlawful detainer action filed under California law. (ECF

No. 1 at 1.) Consequently, there is no federal question basis for removal.

There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the

plaintiffs and defendants be of different citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceed

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not

exceed $10,000. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Defendant’s argue that the amount in controversy is exceeds

$75,000 because “Defendant[s] [have] put into said property well over $500,000.” (ECF No. 5 at

3.) This unfortunately is not the standard for determining the amount in controversy. Because at

least one of the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction is not met, there is no diversity

jurisdiction basis for removal. 

Defendants fail to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. 

Thus, this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Diego. The Clerk SHALL close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01669-JLS-BLM Document 6 Filed 08/26/11 Page 2 of 2