Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00254/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

19-CV-00254

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

MAGNUM PROPERTY 

INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARSHALL C. PFEIFFER and DOES 1-

10,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-00254

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

STATE COURT

[ECF No. 5.]

On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff Magnum Property Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) 

filed an unlawful-detainer action in the Superior Court of California, County of San 

Diego. On February 5, 2019, pro se Defendant Marshall Pfeiffer (“Defendant”) filed a

Notice of Removal of the unlawful-detainer action, alleging that the Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1332(a), and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)

(outlining the duty of loan servers to respond to borrower inquiries). (ECF No. 1, at 4).

Defendant also alleged federal jurisdiction over the unlawful-detainer action by virtue of 

the related action before this Court (Case No. 3:18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB). Id. 

Defendant alleges that this case presents a federal question because the paid 

amounts by Plaintiff in the underlying foreclosure sale provides evidence of a Fraudulent 

Interstate Transaction. Id. Defendant further argues that the amount in controversy is 

Case 3:19-cv-00254-GPC-JLB Document 8 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-00254

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

$629,000, i.e., the alleged value of the property sold at the trustee’s foreclosure. Id. 

Defendant also asserts the parties are diverse and alleges Plaintiff is a Delaware 

corporation. Furthermore, Defendant asserts this action must be removed to this Court 

because it is directly related to a pending action over which this Court already has 

subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., Case No. 3:18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB.

On February 19, 2019, the Court issued an order for Defendant to show cause why 

the case should not be remanded for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court noted 

that remand was ordered in a nearly-identical scenario, where Plaintiff erroneously 

removed a complaint brought by Plaintiff in state court, i.e., Magnum Property 

Investments, LLC v. Pfeiffer, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-2855-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 6. 

The docket reflects that the order to show cause was returned as undeliverable to 

Defendant. (ECF No. 7.) Defendant has made no other filings in the case since he 

removed the action on February 5, 2019. In light of the failure to respond to the order to 

show cause, the failure to prosecute the action, and because the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction in this case for the reasons stated in Case No. 3:18-CV-2855-GPC-JLB, ECF 

No. 6, the Court will REMAND the action and ORDER the Clerk to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00254-GPC-JLB Document 8 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2