Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02862/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 02:431 Fed. Election Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance

---

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

EDWARD WARNER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2862-LAB (DHB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

SHEILA ROSE, JOHN ROSE, et al.,

Defendant.

On December 3, 2012, Defendants removed this unlawful detainer action from the

Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. They did not pay a filing fee, but

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

The Court is required to examine its own jurisdiction, Hernandez v. Campbell, 204

F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000), and to remand a case where jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c).The court presumes that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal

courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). The notice of removal

does not identify any basis for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, the attached

pleadings make clear this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.

The complaint seeks possession of a residence the Roses are allegedly unlawfully

occupying. It pleads a cause of action less than $10,000 and asks for reasonable rent from

- 1 - 12cv2862

Case 3:12-cv-02862-LAB-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/07/12 Page 1 of 2
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

October 27, 2012, which it values at $40 per day. Thus, it is clear the amount in controversy

is much less than the $75,000 threshold required for diversity jurisdiction. See Signet

Doman, LLC v. Aintablian, 2012 WL 5512388 at *1 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 14, 2012) (in unlawful

detainer action, only possession is at issue, not title, and thus the amount in controversy is

the amount sought in the complaint, not the value of the property). Therefore, even

assuming the parties to be diverse (which the notice of removal does not allege), the Court

cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction.

Although the notice refers indirectly to federal defenses or counterclaims, defenses

or counterclaims do not support federal question jurisdiction and do not provide a basis for

removal to federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The notice

also refers to a class action pending in federal court, but this does not support removal

jurisdiction either. See MFC Twin Builders, LLC v. Fajardo, 2012 WL 3862399, slip op. At

*4 (E.D.Cal., Sept. 5, 2012) (“Courts have expressly and clearly rejected attempts to remove

actions based on the relationship of the civil action to be removed and another separate

action already pending in federal court.”) 

This action is therefore REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County

of San Diego, from which it was removed. The IFP motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2862

Case 3:12-cv-02862-LAB-DHB Document 3 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 2