Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00872/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00872-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 - 08cv872-WQH-RBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, a

California limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv872-WQH-RBB

ORDER

vs.

MARIA R. METCALF,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to the Superior Court

of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. # 7). 

BACKGROUND

On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services filed an unlawful detainer action against

Defendant Maria Metcalf in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. # 1). 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant has failed and refused to surrender possession of certain real

property owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant continues to occupy the property

without Plaintiff’s authorization or consent. Plaintiff alleged it is entitled to restitution and

possession of the property from Defendant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections

1161a(b)(3) and 1161a(c). Id. at 6. 

On May 15, 2008, Defendant, acting pro se, removed the case to this Court on the grounds

that she had previously “filed an action under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.” Id. at 1.

Case 3:08-cv-00872-WQH-RBB Document 12 Filed 10/24/08 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 - 08cv872-WQH-RBB

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s “state law case should be removed to the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court and consolidated with the pending federal lawsuit so that all of the

rights of the respective parties can be adjudicated in one proceeding.” Id. at 2. 

On June 13, 2008, Plaintiff moved to remand this case to state court. (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff

contends this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction because “federal law does not create the

rights on which Plaintiff seeks restitution and possession of the real property from defendant;

rather, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1161a(b)(3) and 1161a(c) do.” Id. at 4.

Plaintiff contends that “the only nexus with Federal law that defendant can argue is that her

parallel federal action against Aurora claiming violations of the federal Truth in Lending Law

serves as a defense to Aurora’s unlawful detainer action in state court. This cannot form the basis

for removal jurisdiction.” Id. 

RULING OF THE COURT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

defendants, to the district court of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Upon removal,

the Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). There is a strong presumption against

removal jurisdiction. Id. A district court must remand a case to state court “if at any time before

the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). In this case, the unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff in state court relies exclusively

on state law. The Court finds that Defendant has not carried the burden of proving the existence of

federal subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED. 

The Court remands this action to the state court. 

DATED: October 24, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00872-WQH-RBB Document 12 Filed 10/24/08 Page 2 of 2