Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01311/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01311-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE

HOLDERS CWMBS, INC. CHL

MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH

CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-HYB6

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRIDIANA HORTA and DOES 1 through

X, Inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1311 AJB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

[Doc. No. 2]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order remanding the case to state court.

(Doc. 2.) The motion is unopposed. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds this

motion suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion

hearing scheduled for May 25, 2012 is hereby vacated. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

GRANTS the motion. 

//

//

//

//

1 11cv1311

Case 3:11-cv-01311-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 4
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

I.

BACKGROUND

This action involves a residential unlawful detainer action that Plaintiff filed against Defendant

in San Diego County Superior Court on April 5, 2011.1 In 2005, Defendant had purchased a residential

property in Chula Vista and subsequently defaulted on the deed of trust, which ultimately led to a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the property. On March 2, 2011, Plaintiff purchased the property at the

foreclosure sale, and the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on March 11, 2011. The residential

unlawful detainer action followed the foreclosure sale, with Plaintiff asserting that it has a right to

immediate possession of the property. The Complaint contains only a single state law cause of action for

unlawful detainer and specifically states that the amount of damages sought “Does Not Exceed

$10,000.00.” (Compl. 1.)

Defendant removed the action to this Court on June 15, 2011. The Notice of Removal states that

the action may be removed “because this is between citizens of different states and whereas, the amount

of damages which would be sustained by Defendant would exceed $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and

costs.” (Notice of Removal 2:14-18.)

II.

DISCUSSION

If at any time before final judgment, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

court may remand the case to state court, either sua sponte or on motion of a party. Remand may be

ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for “any defect in removal procedure.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c); see also Buchner v. FDIC, 981 F.2d 816, 820 (5th Cir. 1993). In its motion, Plaintiff argues

that the removal action is untimely and that regardless, the case should be remanded to state court

because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

//

1

 Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the Unlawful Detainer Summons and Complaint. (Doc. 2-3.) 

Pursuant to Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable

dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Facts are indisputable, and thus subject to judicial notice, only if they are

either “generally known” under Rule 201(b)(1) or “capable of accurate and ready determination by

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” under Rule 201(b)(2). The Court

finds these documents to be judicially noticeable and grants Plaintiff’s request.

2 11cv1311

Case 3:11-cv-01311-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/03/12 Page 2 of 4
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

A. Timeliness

Plaintiff claims the removal was untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the notice of removal

must be filed within thirty days after the defendant receives the initial pleading. Here, Defendant’s

statutory time for filing a notice of removal commenced on April 15, 2011 and ended on May 15, 2011,

but this removal action was not filed until June 15, 2011. Defendant’s removal action was therefore

improper and untimely and can be dismissed on this basis alone. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In addition to the timeliness bar, remand is appropriate here because the Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action

can only be removed it could have originally been brought in federal court—under either federal

question or diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Here, the Complaint does not contain any claim “arising under” federal law. Rather, it sets forth

only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively under state law. 

Likewise, diversity jurisdiction does not exist. A federal court has jurisdiction over an action

involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §

1332. The amount in controversy is determined from the allegations or prayer of the complaint. See St.

Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab. Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). Here, the Complaint seeks

damages in an amount less than $10,000, which is stated prominently on the face of the Complaint and

is consistent with the allegations within the Complaint. This amount is well under the $75,000 threshold

required for diversity jurisdiction. Because the amount in controversy clearly and unequivocally does

not exceed $75,000, diversity jurisdiction cannot be established. The Court therefore concludes that it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

//

//

//

//

//

//

3 11cv1311

Case 3:11-cv-01311-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/03/12 Page 3 of 4
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

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and REMANDS this case

to the San Diego County Superior Court, where the unlawful detainer action was originally filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\11cv1311 Motion to Remand.wpd 4 11cv1311

Case 3:11-cv-01311-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/03/12 Page 4 of 4