Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01580/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 Morgan Stanley

ABS Capital I Inc, Trust 2006-WMC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1580 JM(NLS)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT 

vs.

J. ALEJANDRO MARCHENA; LETICIA

LUCIA MONTANO; LUIS ENRIQUE

ARMAS,

Defendants.

On June 26, 2012, Defendants filed aNotice ofRemoval of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. 

The court sua sponte remands this action to state court. See Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th

Cir. 1992) (the court may sua sponte remand an action to state court). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed

at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only

function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steel Co. v.

Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7

Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to

confirm their jurisdictional power and are even “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises

as to [its] existence. . . .” Mt. HealthyCity Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977)

(citations omitted). 

- 1 - 12cv1580

Case 3:12-cv-01580-JM-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/12 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

The state court complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased the property under a power of sale

provision contained in the deed of trust executed by Defendants J. Alejandro Marchena, Leticia Lucia

Montano, and Luis Enrique Armas. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint specifically limits the amount of

damages to an amount not to exceed $10,000. (Compl. at p.1). As the court has diversity jurisdiction

only over civil actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” 28

U.S.C. §1332(a), the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the underlying action. See

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could

have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”).1

In sum, the court remands the action to state court and instructs the Clerk of Court to close the

file. The court also denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2012

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

The court notes that Plaintiff’s claim arises solely under state, and not federal law. 1

Consequently there is no basis for the court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

- 2 - 12cv1580

Case 3:12-cv-01580-JM-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 2