Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01195/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01195-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

VINEYARD & CENTER

VENTURES. LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-CV-1195 BEN (DHB)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

STATE COURT

vs.

RAYNEL I. PRUITT; RODNEY

JOHN PRUITT, and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On April 17, 2013, Plaintiff Vineyard & Center Ventures, LLC filed an

unlawful detainer action in state court against Defendants Raynel I. Pruitt and

Rodney John Pruitt. On May 20, 2013, Rodney Pruitt removed the case to this

Court, purportedly with the consent of Raynel Pruitt. (ECF No. 1.) The Court must

determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. If it does not, it must remand

the case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court

may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Absent diversity of citizenship, federal-question

jurisdiction is required.” Id. “The presence or absence of federal-question

jurisdiction 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

- 1 - 13-CV-1195

Case 3:13-cv-01195-BEN-DHB Document 4 Filed 05/21/13 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

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id.

The Court disagrees with Defendant Rodney Pruitt’s assertion that it has

subject matter jurisdiction. The only claim for relief is a state claim for unlawful

detainer. (See ECF No. 1, at 24-27.) Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See

Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D.

Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer,

a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the

complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”).

The case is REMANDED to Superior Court of California, County of San

Diego, Case No. 37-2013-00044494-CL-UD-NC. Defendant Rodney Pruitt’s

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF NO. 2.) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: May 21, 2013

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13-CV-1195

Case 3:13-cv-01195-BEN-DHB Document 4 Filed 05/21/13 Page 2 of 2