Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00172/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441cv Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

– 1 – 17cv172

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

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE 

FOR DSLA MORTGAGE LOAN 

TRUST 2004-AR4,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00172-BAS-NLS

ORDER REMANDING ACTION 

TO STATE COURT FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION 

v.

DAVID LOUDON, CELESTE 

LOUDON, and DOES 1–10, inclusive

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Celeste Loudon’s

(“Defendant”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant also filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.

//

Case 3:17-cv-00172-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17cv172

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

LEGAL STANDARD

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). “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.” Id. (internal citations omitted); 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, 

28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 

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

1988). “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 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 

n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be 

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 

980 F.2d at 566.

DISCUSSION

Defendant apparently seeks removal primarily on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) In order to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 

Defendant must demonstrate that there is complete diversity of citizenship between 

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

To determine whether the amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he 

district court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that 

the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 

116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). In cases where the plaintiff’s state-court complaint 

does not specify damages, or claims an amount in damages that defendant believes 

Case 3:17-cv-00172-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17cv172

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

to be understated, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Ibarra v. Manheim 

Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015).

Here, even if the parties are citizens of different states, Defendant has not made 

the requisite showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff 

alleges in its verified complaint that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000, 

to which Defendant responds that the amount in controversy “includes up to, but is 

not limited to, an actuary exceeding $75,000[.]” (ECF No. 1, 2–3.) This statement is 

insufficient to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement on removal. Ibarra v. 

Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant’s bare 

assertions regarding “an actuary exceeding $75,000,” without more, cannot defeat

the presumption that the sum claimed by Plaintiff in its complaint controls. See St. 

Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938) (“[T]he sum 

claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.”).

Upon reviewing the complaint, the removal notice, and the related exhibits, 

the Court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to establish that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, removal is improper.1 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a).

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior 

Court of California, County of San Diego. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

 

1

In her notice of removal, Defendant refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), presumably as an alternative 

basis for removal. Defendant’s reliance on this statute is misplaced. The Supreme Court has 

explained that a removal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) is proper only where (1) the “right”

involved arises under a federal law “providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial 

equality,” and (2) the removal petitioner cannot enforce the specified federal rights in state court.

Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 

(1966)). Defendant’s charge that Plaintiff’s counsel has “used their knowledge of the law” to 

“prevent Defendant from fully and accurately presenting her case” is not a cognizable basis for 

removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

Case 3:17-cv-00172-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17cv172

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

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Additionally, 

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF No. 

2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00172-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4