Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01379/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01379-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UPWARD TREND, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

PETER TEATAI-ARIKI; LINDA 

TEATAI-ARIKI, et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3: 16-CV-1379 BEN KSC 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND (ECF No.2); AND 

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY 

AND PETITION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT 

(ECFNo.7) 

On May 10,2016, Plaintiff Upward Trend, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action 

against Defendants Peter Teatai-Ariki and Linda Teatai-Ariki in the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Diego, North County Division, as Case Number 37-2016-

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

0001 5589-CL-UD-NC. On June 7, 2016, Defendants removed the case to this Court on 

the basis of federal question jurisdiction, asked for a stay, and requested consolidation of 

this case with San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2016-00000430-CU-OR-NC, 

Defendants' suit challenging the constitutionality of California's non-judicial foreclosure 

and eviction proceedings. (ECF No. 1.) A day later, on June 8,2016, Plaintiff moved to 

remand the case to state court and filed an ex parte application to shorten time on said 

motion. (ECF No.2.) On June 9, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of removal of Case 

3:16-CV-1379 BEN KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01379-BEN-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 4
1 Number 37-2016-00000430-CU-OR-NC and requested a temporary restraining order 

2 ("TRO"). (ECF No.7.) 

3 The Court set a shortened briefing schedule for Defendants' response to Plaintiff's 

4 Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 10.) By the deadlines imposed, Defendants opposed the 

5 motion,1 and Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 12, 14.) 

6 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. 

7 (ECF No.2.) 

8 DISCUSSION 

9 The Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the 

10 case. If "at any time" the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, "the case shall be 

11 remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "A defendant may remove a case only ifthe claim 

12 could have been brought in federal court." Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson. 478 U.S. 

13 804,808 (1986) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). "Absent diversity of citizenship, federal14 question jurisdiction is required." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

15 The Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Under federal 

16 question jurisdiction, "[a] defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the 

17 plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law." Franchise Tax 

18 Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trustfor S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). 

19 "A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction." 

20 Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808 (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 

21 149,152-53 (1908)). Here, the only claim for relief is one for unlawful detainer, which 

22 arises under state law. (ECF No.1 at 12.) No federal claim is presented on the face of 

23 the complaint. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203,2010 WL 

24 

25 

I Defendants argue that they did not receive timely notice of Plaintiff's Motion to 

26 Remand. (ECF No. 12.) Nevertheless, they admit receiving the Motion and they filed an 

27 Opposition to the Motion to Remand by the Court's imposed deadline. (Id.) Moreover, a 

district court may remand actions sua sponte when it finds that it lacks subject matter 

28 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Therefore, these arguments are not well-taken. 

2 

3:16-CV-1379 BEN KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01379-BEN-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 4
1 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (finding no federal question jurisdiction in case 

2 with single claim for unlawful detainer). And, even if Defendants' assertion that the non3 judicial foreclosure and eviction proceedings violate the United States Constitution had 

4 merit, it would only be a federal defense. Defendants have not established that this Court 

5 has jurisdiction based on a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2 

6 Defendants' request to consolidate this case with San Diego Superior Court Case 

7 Number 37-2016-00000430-CU-OR-NC does not provide a basis for subject matter 

8 jurisdiction. Assuming this Court could consolidate these two cases,3 Federal Rule of 

9 Civil Procedure 42 grants the Court "broad discretion" to consolidate separate cases if 

10 such actions share "a common question oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Grendene 

11 USA, Inc. v. Brady, No. 3: 14-cv-2955-GPC-KSC, 2015 WL 1499229, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

12 Apr. 1,2015). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should weigh "any time and 

13 effort saved by consolidation against any 'inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would 

14 cause.'" Id. at *2. 

15 Here, the two separate actions involve different parties and different questions of 

16 law and fact. (Compare ECF No.1 at 12 (unlawful detainer complaint), with ECF No.7 

17 at 11 (motion in constitutional case.)) Judicial economy would not be served by 

18 consolidating such different actions. Furthermore, consolidating the cases would delay 

19 

20 

21 2 In addition, although not the basis for Defendants' removal, this Court lacks diversity 

22 jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is less than $75,000, precluding jurisdiction even 

if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint indicates that the 

23 amount demanded is less than $10,000. 

24 3 Defendants have removed the unlawful detainer action, now captioned 16-cv-1379. 

25 (ECF No.1.) The Court construes Defendants' filing at Docket No.7, styled as a "Notice 

of Removal ... with ... Petition for TRO and OSC re Preliminary Injunction," in which 

26 Defendants state that "Case No. 37-2016-00000430-CU-OR-NC ... has been 

27 REMOVED," as an attempt to remove the constitutional case to this Court. (ECF No.7.) 

The Court assumes, without deciding, that both actions have been properly removed to 

28 federal court. 

3 

3:16·CV·1379 BEN KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01379-BEN-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 4
· . 

1 Plaintiff s unlawful detainer action, which is entitled to preferential treatment in 

2 California state court under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1179a, thus prejudicing 

3 Plaintiffs ability to take possession of the premises at issue. Accordingly, the Court 

4 declines to exercise its discretion to consolidate the actions and thus DENIES 

5 Defendants' request to consolidate the cases. 

6 Because the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs 

7 Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (ECF No.2.) Defendants' request for a stay and 

8 petition for a TRO and order to show cause to reinstate a stay on the foreclosure sale, set 

9 aside the foreclosure proceedings, and enjoin the eviction are MOOT. (ECF Nos. 1,7.) 

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

11 County Division, Case Number 37-20 16-00015589-CL-UD-NC. 

12 

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14 

15 Dated: June /! ,2016 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Judge 

4 

3:16·CV·1379 BEN KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-01379-BEN-KSC Document 16 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 4