Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00185/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

13231 SUNDANCE LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-0185-H (NLS)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

vs.

ANGEL SILVA, ROSA M. ESCOBAR,

AND DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

On January 23, 2012, Defendant Rosa M. Escobar, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of

removal of this case from the Superior Court of the State of California to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 24, 2012, the

Court ordered Defendants Silva and Escobar to show cause on or before February 2, 2012 at

5:00 p.m. why this action should not be remanded to state court. On February 2, 2012,

Defendant Escobar responded to the Court’s order to show cause. (Doc. No. 5.)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States v. Mark, 530 F.3d 799,

810 (9th Cir. 2008). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. 

Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function

remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v.

Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998).

Only cases that would have had original jurisdiction in a federal district court may be

- 1 - 12cv0185

Case 3:12-cv-00185-H-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/02/12 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

removed from state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is strictly construed

against removal jurisdiction, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

to the right of removal in the first instance. Provincial Gov’t v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d

1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). “The

‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Abrego Abrego

v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“[U]nder CAFA the

burden of establishing removal jurisdiction remains, as before, on the proponent of federal

jurisdiction.”). Further, a “defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the

plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd.

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 8 (1983). The district court must

remand if it lacks jurisdiction over the removed case. See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n.

Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998).

Defendant argues that the complaint contains federal causes of actions such as the Truth

in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and therefore removal to federal court

is proper. However, the original complaint does not list any of these claims. (Doc. No. 1.) 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges unlawful detainer and damages amounting to less than

$10,000. (Doc. No. 1.) Unlawful detainer does not arise under federal law, and the pleaded

damages do not meet the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court remands

this case to the Superior Court, County of San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2012

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 - 12cv0185

Case 3:12-cv-00185-H-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/02/12 Page 2 of 2