Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01300/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01300-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

ALEGRIA REAL ESTATE FUND II,

LLC,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13cv1300 BTM(WVG)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

SHARON A. DEYOUNG; and DOES

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On June 5, 2013, Defendant Sharon A. DeYoung (“Defendant”) removed this

unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 

Defendant contends that removal is proper because the Court has federal question

jurisdiction over the matter.

However, upon review of the underlying Complaint, it appearsthat the unlawful

detainer action is pursuant to state law and does not arise under federal law as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a claim “arises under” federal law is governed by the

“well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Defendant contends

that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because the Notice of Trustee Sale did

not notify her of the location of the sale so as to afford the Defendant the opportunity

1 13cv1300 BTM(WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-01300-BTM-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/12/13 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

to cure the default, in violation of Defendant’s right to due process.

However, it is “settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the

basis of a federal defense.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463

U.S. 1, 14 (1983). Furthermore, the Court has no basis for concluding that diversity

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

The removing defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper, and the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. Gaus v.

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Since the Court does not appear to have

jurisdiction in this matter, it hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of

California, San Diego County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 13cv1300 BTM(WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-01300-BTM-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/12/13 Page 2 of 2