Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00599/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1461 Savings Associations: Homeowners Loan Act (Short Title)

---

1

3:17-cv-00599-GPC-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

SOUTHLAND AND HOME 

MORTGAGE II, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS ET AL,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00599-GPC-JMA

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

[ECF No. 1]

On March 27, 2017, Defendant Edrei Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of 

removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of 

California for San Diego County. Dkt. No. 1. Having reviewed the notice of removal, 

the Court finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, 

the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court. 

DISCUSSION

Any action brought in state court may be “removed by the defendant or the 

defendants” to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“A 

defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file 

. . . a notice of removal . . . .”). 

/ / / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00599-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-00599-GPC-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

As an initial matter, Edrei Thomas (“Thomas”), though he may be a tenant, is not a 

named defendant in the state court action. See Dkt. No. 1 at 8 (“Verified Complaint for 

Unlawful Detainer”). Therefore, he cannot remove the action to this Court. But even if 

Thomas were a proper defendant, he still has not demonstrated that this Court has federal 

subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute 

until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues 

presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). 

Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional 

power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] existence 

. . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) 

(citations omitted). The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. 

Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power 

authorized by the Constitution or statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 

475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). 

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, 107 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 

(9th Cir.1996). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” 

Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2009) (citing Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)). 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 S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-

11 (1983). Alternatively, a federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action 

involving citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Case 3:17-cv-00599-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-00599-GPC-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 presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the 

party seeking removal.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

1988). “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). 

A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff Southland 

Home Mortgage II, LLC, alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under 

California state law. Dkt. No. 1 at 8. In the notice of removal, Thomas alleges that the 

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to a federal question because Plaintiff’s complaint is 

related to a pending action in this Court, Case No. 15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA, where the 

original owner of the property at issue is challenging the foreclosure of her residence 

pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3; 

see also Case No. No. 15-cv-02344-GPC-JMA, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 8. 

Thomas’ reliance on a related case in this Court — namely No. 15-cv-02344 — to

support subject matter jurisdiction suggests that he may be relying on the court’s 

supplemental jurisdiction; however, a “removal petition . . . may not base subject-matter 

jurisdiction on the supplemental jurisdiction statute, even if the action which a defendant 

seeks to remove is related to another action over which the federal district court already 

has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Pacific Bell v. Covad Commc’ns Co., 1999 WL 390840, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 1999) (quoting Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 

451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996)). Therefore, Thomas’ reason for removal cannot support federal 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Sato v. Wachovia Mort., FSB, 2011 WL 2784567, at *12 

(N.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) (“any relationship between the unlawful detainer action and the 

wrongful foreclosure case is irrelevant for purposes of removal.”); Waadhwa v. Aurora 

Loan Servs., LLC, 2011 WL 308416, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2011) (unlawful detainer 

Case 3:17-cv-00599-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-00599-GPC-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

action does not raise a federal question even though it was filed because of a related 

federal case concerning the loan and foreclosure). 

Thomas’ assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is without merit and it does 

not appear that jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship as the amount in controversy 

in the state court complaint does not exceed $10,000. See Dkt. No. 1 at 8 (“Verified

Complaint for Unlawful Detainer”). Thomas, therefore, has not established a basis for 

this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and the Court must remand the case. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c).

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior 

Court of the State of California for San Diego County. The Court also DENIES 

Defendant’s emergency motion for writ and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Jurisdiction as moot. Dkt. No. 3 & 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00599-GPC-JMA Document 6 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4