Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02830/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02830-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

The Court notes that no motion to remand was made.

- 1 - 11cv2830

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESH START, LP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2830 JLS (POR)

ORDER: SUA SPONTE

REMANDING CASE

vs.

ISIDRO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant in the Superior Court of

California for the County of San Diego on September 7, 2011. (See Notice of Removal Ex. A,

ECF No. 1 (UD Compl.)) On December 5, 2011, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case

to this Court. (Notice of Removal 1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an “Ex Parte Application for an

Order Shortening Time on Motion to Remand and/or Request for Immediate Ruling.” (ECF No.

4.)1

 For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s removal of this case was improper

and sua sponte remands the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.

In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have

original jurisdiction,” a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 

Case 3:11-cv-02830-JLS-POR Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 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

- 2 - 11cv2830

28 U.S.C. §1441(a). However, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal

jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). 

Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

1979)). The removing party bears the burden of establishing that federal subject matter

jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). The

district court’s subject matter jurisdiction encompasses federal question jurisdiction and diversity

jurisdiction, and the Court discusses each of these in turn. 

To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court looks to the plaintiff’s

complaint. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002). 

The Court does not consider the defendant’s answer, defenses, or counterclaims. Id. 831. In this

case, Plaintiff’s underlying claim is an unlawful detainer action filed under California law. 

Defendant does not contest this and argues instead that removal is proper because he seeks

“judgment against Plaintiff that Defendant/Counter Plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of

various violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” (Notice of Removal 2.) 

Although the Court finds no indication of the existence of any counterclaims in the record before

it, even assuming Defendant’s allegations are true, any such counterclaims do not enter into the

determination of whether removal is appropriate. Consequently, there is no federal question basis

for removal.

There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. Diversity jurisdiction requires

that Plaintiff and Defendant be of different citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceed

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The caption of Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the amount

demanded is “under $10,000.” (UD Compl. 1.) The complaint further states that the judgment

sought is $600, “in addition to damages for the use and occupancy of the subject premises.” 

(Id. at 3.) Thus, the Court can find no basis to support Defendant’s allegation that “Plaintiffs do

not quantify the amount of damages they seek to recover in this case” and that “it is apparent that

the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

//

Case 3:11-cv-02830-JLS-POR Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 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

2

Further, Plaintiff states in its ex parte application to shorten time that it is a California

corporation, which, if true, would defeat diversity of citizenship as well. (App. to Shorten Time 3,

ECF No. 4.) 

- 3 - 11cv2830

(Notice of Removal 3.) Because at least one of the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction is

not met, there is no diversity jurisdiction basis for removal.2

Defendant fails to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. 

Thus, this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Diego. Defendant’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to shorten time (ECF No. 4) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02830-JLS-POR Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 3