Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01420/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01420-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

- 1 - 11cv1420

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TWIN OAKS VALLEY RANCH

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1420 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: (1) SUA SPONTE

REMANDING CASE;

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(ECF No. 2)

vs.

JOE S. LUJAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in San Diego County Superior

Court on May 27, 2011. (Notice of Removal Ex. A (Compl.), ECF No. 1-1.) On June 28, 2011,

Defendant Joe S. Lujan removed the case to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The Court

finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter and sua sponte remands the case to the Superior Court

of California for the County of San Diego.

In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction,” a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

However, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v.

Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). The removing party bears the burden

of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d

Case 3:11-cv-01420-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 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

- 2 - 11cv1420

1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction encompasses federal question jurisdiction and diversity

jurisdiction. The Court discusses each in turn.

To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court looks to the plaintiff’s

complaint. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002). The

Court does not consider the defendant’s answer, defenses, or counterclaims. Id. 831. In this case,

Plaintiff’s underlying claim is an unlawful detainer action filed under California law. (Compl.) Lujan

does not contest this and states only that Peters & Freedman LLP—which is not a party to this

action—violated certain provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Notice of Removal 2.)

 Even assuming that these allegations are true, they cannot be taken into consideration for determining

whether removal is appropriate. Consequently, there is no federal question basis for removal.

There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. Diversity jurisdiction requires that

the plaintiffs and defendants be of different citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceed

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff and Defendant are both California residents, and accordingly,

the complete diversity requirement is not satisfied. (Notice of Removal 1; Compl. 1.) Because at least

one of the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction is not met, there is no diversity jurisdiction basis

for removal.

Defendant fails to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

Thus, this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.

Defendant’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF

No. 2.) The Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01420-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 2