Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02519/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

12cv2741

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

VENTURE TRUST 2013-1-NH BY 

MCM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC ITS 

TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOLORES JANE MUOIO, JOHN A 

MUOIO, and DOES 1 through 5, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No15cv2519 AJB (JMA)

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. 3)

INTRODUCTION 

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff Ventures Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 

detainer action against Defendants Dolores and John Muoio in San Diego County 

Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-2.) On November 6, 2015, John Muoio (“Defendant”) 

removed the action to this court, asserting federal jurisdiction is appropriate. (Doc. No. 

1.) Concurrently with the notice of removal, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 3.) Upon review of the documents presently before the Court, 

the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and REMANDS this 

case to San Diego County Superior Court. As such, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 3:15-cv-02519-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 4
2

12cv2741

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Ninth 

Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 

264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the 

burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”). “If at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) 

(“federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction”); 

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”)

DISCUSSION 

A. Federal Jurisdiction

In order for removal to be proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 

Defendant must show that Plaintiff's “‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that 

federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily 

depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay 

Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice 

Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006). “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists 

only 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). “A defense is not 

part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank 

of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).

On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful detainer, a 

California state law action. (See Doc. No. X.); see also Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, *3 

Case 3:15-cv-02519-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 4
3

12cv2741

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

(“an unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a 

creature of California law”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-8203, 2010 

WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Whatever federal questions Defendant might 

raise in defense to the unlawful detainer action are insufficient to confer removal 

jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barcenas, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

173586, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) (“Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a 

federal question does not present itself.”); Aurora Loan Servs. v. Orozco, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 172200, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (explaining that unlawful detainer 

actions are purely matters of state law and that “any federal defense Defendant raises is 

irrelevant with regard to jurisdiction”).

Plaintiff’s right to relief on the unlawful detainer claim does not depend on the 

resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Rather, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment 

upon establishing that the requisite three-day notice to pay or quit was served on 

Defendant as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(3). Long Beach 

Brethren Manor, Inc. v. Leverett, 239 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 24, 28-29 (Cal. App. Dep’t 

Super. Ct. 2015). Accordingly, due to the absence of a federal claim or substantial 

question of federal law, Defendant has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction based on 

a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

B. In Forma Pauperis Application

Because the Court has determined it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over

this action, it hereby DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

CONCLUSION

As set forth more thoroughly above, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of 

jurisdiction and sua sponte REMANDS this matter to San Diego County Superior Court. 

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-02519-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 4
4

12cv2741

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

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 24, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-02519-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 4