Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02533/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02533-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

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

EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

YAEL EVEN, DONALD REDMON, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION, (Doc. No. 1); AND

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 2)

INTRODUCTION

On November 9, 2015, Defendant Donald Redmon (“Redmon”), acting pro se, 

filed a notice of removal, (Doc. No. 1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 

(Doc. No. 2).1 The notice of removal seeks to remove an unlawful detainer proceeding 

 

1 Defendants Yael Even and Donald Redmon both named as defendants in the state court 

complaint. However, because the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 

instant matter, the Court need not address this procedural defect. See Parrino v. FHP, 

Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

Additionally, a notice of related case filed by Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 4), also lists other 

defendants, including Shannon Redmon, Kevin Stephens, and Rebecca Stephens. 

Case 3:15-cv-02533-AJB-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 5
2

15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

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

initiated in Los Angeles Superior Court by Eagle Vista Equities, LLC, the Plaintiff in this 

action. (Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS 

the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and DENIES AS MOOT Redmon’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 

Nos. 1, 2).

DISCUSSION

An action is removable to a federal court only if it could have been brought there 

originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As set forth in the notice of removal, Redman alleges 

the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the present action. (Doc. No. 1 at 2−3.) The 

notice of removal alleges that Plaintiff is not organized or licensed to do business in 

California, but does not set forth the citizenship of either Defendant for the purposes of

diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) Additionally, review of the complaint filed in state 

court demonstrates the underlying claim is for post-foreclosure unlawful detainer, and 

that Plaintiff’s demand does not exceed $10,000 in damages. (See Doc. No. 1-2.) Upon 

review of the documents presently before the Court, the Court concludes it does not have 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore remand is appropriate. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction 

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action 

from state court to federal court only if the district court would have original jurisdiction 

over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are strictly construed against 

removal.” Luther v. Countywide Home Loans Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 

2008). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party 

seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of 

removal, federal jurisdiction must be rejected. Id. at 567. 

Redmon asserts federal jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. 

(See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5.) For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction there must be 

Case 3:15-cv-02533-AJB-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 5
3

15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

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

“complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement of 

$75,000 must be met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 267 

(1806). “[W]hen a state-court complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in 

controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the ‘party seeking removal must 

prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.’” Guglielmino v. McKee 

Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). Redmon fails to establish diversity 

jurisdiction exists. Although Redmon argues Plaintiff is not “organized or licensed to do 

business in California,” the notice of removal fails to allege the citizenship of defendants 

or assert the amount in controversy is satisfied. In fact, the underlying state court 

complaint establishes Plaintiff seeks an amount less than $10,000 in damages. (See Doc. 

No. 1-2.) 

Additionally, it is also clear that Plaintiff’s post-foreclosure unlawful detainer 

action does not arise under the federal law. See Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., 

LLC v. Lam, 2011 WL 781243 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011); Galileo Fin. v. Park, 2009 WL 

3157411 (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.”). 

Although Redmon asserts his property was “a federally related mortgage,” that is 

insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim of unlawful detainer.1(See 

also Doc. No. 4-1) (previously remanding this case after removal to the Central District 

of California). 

Notably, Redmon removed the action to the Central District of California on a 

prior occasion, after which the district court remanded the case for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. (See Doc. Nos. 4, 4-1.) On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of 

 

1 Additionally, because the underlying action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior 

Court, removal to the Southern District of California was improper to 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(a) (noting removal is proper to the district court of the United States for the district 

and division embracing the place where such action is pending). 

Case 3:15-cv-02533-AJB-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 5
4

15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

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

related case informing the Court that Redmon previously removed this matter to federal 

court. Redmon is cautioned against further dilatory tactics and meritless removals of the 

post-foreclosure unlawful detainer action to federal court. Regardless of the federal 

district court to which Redmon removes the case, each court’s determination of 

jurisdiction will remain the same. This action is not one in which diversity jurisdiction 

exists, or one that arises under federal law. Accordingly, state court is, and remains, the 

appropriate forum for resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. Further removal of this case to 

federal court will not be looked at with favor and may well warrant further action by 

Plaintiff as indicated in the notice of related case filed on November 11, 2015.2 Finally, 

aside from the jurisdictional defects in Redmon’s current and former removals of this 

case to federal court, procedural deficiencies exist that further preclude removal from 

being deemed appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 

CONCLUSION

Thus, finding the Court lacks jurisdiction over the underlying matter, the Court sua 

sponte REMANDS the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Clerk of Court is instructed to remand the case and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2015

 

2

In its notice of related case, Plaintiff indicated its intent to file a motion to remand and a 

motion to declare Defendants vexatious litigants and for additional sanctions. (Doc. No. 4 

at 2.) Just before this order was issued, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and a motion to 

declare Defendants vexatious litigations. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) In light of the Court’s sua 

sponte determination that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff’s motions are 

DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As set forth above, however, 

Defendants are cautioned against further federal filings made for the sole purpose of 

delaying resolution of the unlawful detainer action. 

Case 3:15-cv-02533-AJB-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 5
5

15cv2533 AJB (KSC)

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

Case 3:15-cv-02533-AJB-KSC Document 8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 5 of 5