Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01824/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01824-0/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 - 10cv1824

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SD COASTLINE LP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1824-LAB (AJB)

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

ROMEO D. REYES, and DOES 1 - 20,

Defendants.

On September 1, 2010, Defendant removed this case from the Superior Court of

California for the County of San Diego, Central Division. Plaintiff moved to remand, and the

Court ordered Defendant to file an opposition to the motion showing why this case should

not be immediately remanded. Defendant has now filed his opposition.

Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s house at a non-judicial foreclosure sale around

February 18, 2010 and brought an unlawful detainer action in state court (Case number 37-

2010-00043296-CL-UD-CTL). That is the action Defendant removed to this Court. The

notice of removal identifies a federal question as the source of the Court’s jurisdiction, but

in fact the only federal questions are raised in counterclaims or defenses to Plaintiff’s claims.

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction only exists when the

complaint is based on federal law; federal questions in defenses or counterclaims are

insufficient. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 1278 (2009). 

Case 3:10-cv-01824-LAB-AJB Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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 That removal was adjudicated in this district in S.D. Coastline v. Reyes, 10cv1225- 1

WQH (NLS), and Judge William Hayes issued the order of remand.

- 2 - 10cv1824

The motion to remand points out Defendant has removed this action once already,1

and it was remanded on August 5, 2010 after he failed to respond to an order to show

cause. While remand does not necessarily preclude a second removal to federal court, a

party may not remove an action twice on the same basis. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for

Cent. Dist. of Calif., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). 

In his opposition, Defendant argues he will somehow be unfairly prejudiced if he

cannot litigate potential federal counterclaims in federal court. But he has not shown why

the state court cannot adjudicate these issues. He also attempts for the first time to show

the Court could exercise diversity jurisdiction. But because the parties are not diverse, this

argument fails. In short, Defendant’s arguments lack any merit.

Because Defendant has not shown his second removal is based on any new grounds,

and because he has shown no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, this action must be

remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”)

Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue an order providing that any further removals will

be of no force or effect and that the state court may proceed to try this action despite any

later-filed notices of removal. The Court’s authority to issue such an order is unclear and

has not been briefed. Nevertheless, it is clear the repeated removals are causing needless

delay and expense, and must stop. 

In the first removal, the Court explained the effect of the well-pleaded complaint rule

to Defendant, and pointed out it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Undeterred,

Defendant removed a second time, relying on the same meritless arguments. Furthermore,

both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, the only two likely sources of jurisdiction, are

obviously lacking. Defendant is therefore ORDERED not to attempt to remove this case

again unless Plaintiff amends the complaint to add a claim arising under federal law. Any

further removals in violation of this order are punishable by sanctions.

Case 3:10-cv-01824-LAB-AJB Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 10cv1824

For these reasons, this unlawful detainer action is REMANDED to the court from

which it was removed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 8, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01824-LAB-AJB Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 3