Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02986/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2986-WQH-DHB

ORDER

vs.

ROBERT TORAL; ROSEANN

COVARRUBIAS; and DOES 1-10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 2) filed by Plaintiff

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) filed by

Defendant Roseann Covarrubias.

BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation initiated this

action by filing a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Following Foreclosure Sale in the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego, where it was assigned case number 37-2012-

00047677-CL-UD-CTL. (ECF No. 1-6 at 8-11). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff

purchased real property located at 247 Elm Avenue, Chula Vista, California at a foreclosure

sale. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff served Defendants with written notice requiring

them to vacate the property, and that Defendants have failed to vacate the property. The

Complaint alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law, and seeks

- 1 - 12cv2986-WQH-DHB

Case 3:12-cv-02986-WQH-DHB Document 10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 4
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

possession of the property and damages that “do[] not exceed $10,000.” Id. at 8.

On December 16, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). 

The Notice of Removal asserts that removal is based upon diversity, federal question, and

supplemental jurisdiction. See id. at 6-8.

On January 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 2). On January

28, 2013, Defendant Covarrubias filed an opposition.1

 (ECF No. 8). On January 29, 2013,

Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 9). 

On January 4, 2013, Defendant Covarrubias filed the Motion to Dismiss for failure to

state a claim. (ECF No. 4). On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 6).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this

action and that it should be remanded. (ECF No. 2-1). Plaintiff contends that “there is no

federal question involved in a state court unlawful detainer case, even assuming the Defendant

intends to asse[r]t a federal defense to the underlying state law claim....” Id. at 2. Plaintiff

contends that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the complaint alleges an amount

in controversy of less than $10,000.00 and the Notice of Removal does not allege the

citizenship of Plaintiff. Id. at 6.

Defendant Covarrubias asserts that the Notice of Removal contains a typographical

error and that Plaintiff is misidentified.2

 (ECF No. 8 at 11). Defendant Covarrubias asserts

that, if the Court looks past the typographical error, the Notice of Removal alleges that

Defendants are citizens of California and that Plaintiff is a resident of Virginia. Id. at 11. 

Defendant Covarrubias contends that the Notice of Removal demonstrates, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Plaintiff “seeks

possession of a home that is encumbered by a Note and Deed of Trust that exceeds $300,000

dollars....” Id. at 12. Defendant Covarrubias contends that the Notice of Removal alleges a

1

The docket reflects that Defendant Robert Toral has not filed an opposition to the

Motion to Remand (ECF No. 2).

2

The Notice of Removal states, in pertinent part: “The Removed Plaintiff, CITIBANK,

is a resident of a state of Virginia.” (ECF No. 1 at 6).

- 2 - 12cv2986-WQH-DHB

Case 3:12-cv-02986-WQH-DHB Document 10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 4
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

federal question “[b]ecause this removed action is a compulsory counterclaim to [a related case

filed by Defendant Covarrubias in this Court]....” Id. at 14.

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court pursuant to the

general removal statute, based on either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1441. Federal question jurisdiction may not “rest upon an actual or anticipated

counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009); see also id. at 1273

(“[C]ounterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a

case for federal-court cognizance.”). Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[D]iversity of citizenship requires that no defendant have the

same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d

495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). The amount in controversy is determined from the allegations or

prayer of the complaint. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289

(1938). “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). “The

removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires

resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airline, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244

(9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The presumption against removal means that “the defendant

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.

In this case, “it is not facially evident” from the state court complaint – which demands

an amount “not exceed[ing] $10,000” – that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. 

Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090; ECF No. 1-6 at 8. The Court finds that the Notice of Removal

has failed to “prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. The Deed of Trust indicates that

Defendants borrowed $399,900.00 in order to purchase the real property at issue in this case

(ECF No. 1-4 at 35-36); however, in unlawful detainer actions, the amount of damages sought

- 3 - 12cv2986-WQH-DHB

Case 3:12-cv-02986-WQH-DHB Document 10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 4
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

in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in

controversy. See Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170-71 (1977) (“[I]n a

summary proceeding for unlawful detainer ‘the right to possession alone was involved, and the

broad question of title could not be raised and litigated by cross-complaint or affirmative

defense.’ ... Real parties are not left without a remedy. The issues which they seek to litigate

can be pursued by way of quiet title actions.”).3

 To the extent Defendant Covarrubias contends

that she has a defense to the unlawful detainer action grounded in federal law, “the existence

of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction.” Wayne v. DHL

Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1983)). The Court concludes that this action must

be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Motion to Dismiss

is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 4). 

DATED: April 9, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

3

The Court’s docket reflects that Defendant Covarrubias has filed an action against

Plaintiff to quiet title. See Covarrubias v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al., 12-CV-2775-WQH-DHB (S.D. Cal.).

- 4 - 12cv2986-WQH-DHB

Case 3:12-cv-02986-WQH-DHB Document 10 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 4