Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01866/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01866-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

1

18cv1866-MMA (JMA)

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

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 

2016, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGO STOUTENBURG and

MELISSA SPERLEIN,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1866-MMA (JMA)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION;

AND DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

On August 9, 2018, Defendant Melissa Sperlein (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, 

filed a notice of removal in this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court for the 

County of San Diego, and simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma paupers

(“IFP”). Doc. Nos. 1, 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 

479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts possess only that power authorized by 

Case 3:18-cv-01866-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1866-MMA (JMA)

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

the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 

541 (1986). The Court is constitutionally required to raise issues related to a federal 

subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 

1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et seq. A 

state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal 

court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the basis of 

federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates 

the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the 

resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. 

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). Additionally,

federal courts have jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states when 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, 

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Nishimoto v. 

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). “Federal 

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

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

jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 

at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful doctrine [that] severely limits the 

number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’ that may be initiated in or 

removed to federal district court . . . .” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9-10. Under this 

rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 

pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 

(9th Cir. 2002).

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-01866-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1866-MMA (JMA)

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

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint, attached to Defendant’s notice of removal, asserts only 

one cause of action against Defendants for unlawful detainer. Doc. No. 1-2. Defendant 

alleges in her notice of removal that the Court has federal jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1 at 2. 

Specifically, Defendant asserts that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), 

12 U.S.C. § 5220, preempts Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer cause of action. Id. Defendant, 

however, has not met her burden of demonstrating grounds for jurisdiction. While 

Defendant cites to a federal statute, the PTFA is not implicated by Plaintiff’s complaint. 

A plaintiff is “the master of his complaint,” and may “generally avoid federal jurisdiction 

by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th 

Cir. 2005).

Moreover, Defendant “may use the PTFA as a defense in [her] state law 

proceedings, but this defense does not create subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.” 

HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Serrato, No. 13-CV-1968 RS, 2013 WL 3337813, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. July 1, 2013); see also Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Eaddy, No. 12-CV-1845 

YGR, 2012 WL 4173987, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (“The PTFA is intended to be 

used for protection in state court but does not create a private right of action or a basis 

for federal subject matter jurisdiction”) (emphasis added). Thus, the PTFA cannot serve 

as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is 

now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense.”) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, because the complaint asserts only one 

state law claim, and does not allege any federal claim, Defendant has not met her burden 

of demonstrating that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Further, although not raised by Defendant, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this 

matter. Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that this is a “limited” civil case where the damages 

sought cannot exceed $25,000. See Doc. No. 1-2 at 3; see also Stratton v. Beck, 9 Cal. 

App. 5th 483, 492 (Ct. App. 2017) (stating that a proceeding may not be treated as a 

Case 3:18-cv-01866-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1866-MMA (JMA)

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

limited civil action unless the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000). As such, 

the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this 

action back to state court.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of Court is instructed to 

return the case to state court forthwith and close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to proceed IFP. See Doc. No. 2.

Dated: August 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01866-MMA-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4