Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02617/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

ROCKY CACAO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2617-WQHNLS

vs. ORDER

JOSHUA SALAS, JOSE ANTONIO

HERNANDEZ, JONATHAN A.

RIOS, and DOES 1 through 5,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and the Ex Parte Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 3). 

I. Background

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff Rocky Cacao filed a Complaint for unlawful

detainer in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-1). 

On October 29, 2013, Defendant Joshua Salas (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se,

filed a Notice of Removal in this Court (ECF No. 1), and a Motion for Leave to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (“Motion to Proceed IFP”). (ECF No. 2). 

On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Motion to Remand to State

Court (“Motion to Remand”). (ECF No. 3). 

- 1 - 13cv2617-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02617-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/17/13 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

On December 11, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Remand. 

(ECF No. 5). On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply and request for attorney’s

fees. (ECF No. 6). 

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff moves for remand of this action to state court on the basis that the Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and that neither federal question jurisdiction nor

diversity jurisdiction exists. (ECF No. 3-1 at 8-11). Defendant does not specifically

allege subject-matter jurisdiction, but states that “[t]he case has been removed for the

following reasons: “True Bill” by Joshua Salas in support of Legislative Act, By Caveat

Judicial Notice 28 USC 1446 - sec. 576 which grants Removal to Defendants.” (ECF

No. 1 at 2). 

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). 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). The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the

right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The presumption against removal means that the defendant

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska

Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).

1. Diversity of Citizenship

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for

a Better Env., 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). It is also necessary that “the amount

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs....” 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

- 2 - 13cv2617-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02617-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/17/13 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

In the Notice of Removal, Defendant states that he is a resident of California, and

that Plaintiff is a resident of California. (ECF No. 1-2 at 1). In the Motion to Remand,

Plaintiff asserts that he is a resident of California. (ECF No. 3-1 at 11). Further, the

amount in controversy asserted by Plaintiff in the Complaint is at most $10,000. (ECF

No. 1-1). Defendant has provided no basis for a determination that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant has failed to establish complete diversity of

citizenship. See Thompson v. McComb, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996) (upon

removal, defendant bears the burden of establishing the “actual existence of subject

matter jurisdiction.”). 

2. Federal Question

Absent diversity of citizenship, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction

“when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citation omitted);

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The well pleaded complaint rule “makes the plaintiff the

master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on

state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “Removability cannot be created by defendant

pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal question....” Takeda v. Northwestern

Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (quotation and citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint relies exclusively on state law and does not assert a federal

question. To the extent Defendant contends that he has a defense to the unlawful

detainer action grounded in federal law, “the existence of a defense based upon federal

law is insufficient to support jurisdiction.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294

F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation

Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1983)). 

The Court concludes that neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal

adequately states a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Motion

to Remand is GRANTED. 

B. Request for Attorney’s Fees

- 3 - 13cv2617-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02617-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/17/13 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

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

incurred as a result of Defendant’s improper removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),

“[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual

expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). 

The Court finds that, considering the circumstances of this case, including

Defendant’s pro se status, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate. See Citibank

N.A. v. Ortiz, 2008 WL 4771932, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) (declining to award

fees “in consideration of Defendant's pro se status”). 

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (ECF

No. 3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED to the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned

case number 37-2013-00070238-CL-UD-CTL. The Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No.

2) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: December 17, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv2617-WQH-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02617-WQH-NLS Document 7 Filed 12/17/13 Page 4 of 4