Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00995/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00995-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

- 1 - 11CV995

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION

OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV995 JLS (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND

(ECF No. 3.)

vs.

MAURICE D. MADISON and HANNA M.

MADISON,

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of California for the

County of San Diego on March 10, 2011. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants filed a notice of removal in

federal court soon thereafter. (ECF No. 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to

remand. (ECF No. 3.) After consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

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 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 3:11-cv-00995-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 06/23/11 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 - 11CV995

Defendants’ notice of removal indicates that removal is pursuant to federal question

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court

looks to the plaintiff’s complaint. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.,

535 US 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 pursuant to California state law. (ECF No. 1-1.) There is no federal question basis for

removal. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00995-JLS-WVG Document 5 Filed 06/23/11 Page 2 of 2