Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00898/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00898-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL E. WINTER, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13cv898 AJB (WMc)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING TO STATE COURT

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

[Doc. No. 1]

On April 15, 2013, Defendant Paul E. Winter, acting pro se, filed a notice of

removal, (Doc. No. 1). The notice of removal seeks to remove an unlawful detainer

proceeding initiated in San Diego Superior Court by First Citizens Bank & Trust

Company (“First Citizen”), the Plaintiff in this action. (Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons set

forth below, the Court finds the Defendant has failed to demonstrate either federal

question or diversity jurisdiction exist and therefore sua sponte REMANDS the action to

San Diego Superior Court, North County Division.

DISCUSSION 

An action is removable to a federal court only if it could have been brought there

originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As set forth in the notice of removal, Mr. Winter

alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the present action based on 

1 13cv898

Case 3:13-cv-00898-AJB-WMC Document 3 Filed 04/18/13 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

First Citizen’s defective notice of the unlawful detainer action in state court. (Doc. No.

1.) Mr. Winter contends that the notice given by First Citizen failed to comply with “The

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §5220,” however, this United States

Code section actually refers to the “Assistance to Homeowners” section of the Troubled

Assets Relief Program (“TARP”). It appears that Mr. Winter is relying on a section of

TARP under the Historical and Statutory Notes, entitled “Effect of Foreclosure on

Preexisting Tenancy” which states:

(a) In general.--In the case of any foreclosure on a federally-related mort- gage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property after the date of enactment of this title [May 20, 2009], any immediate successor in interest

in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest

subject to-- (1) the provision, by such successor in interest of a notice to vacate to

any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such

notice . . .

(b) Bona fide lease or tenancy.--For purposes of this section, a lease or

tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if-- (1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor

under the contract is not the tenant . . .

See Pub. L. 111-22, Div. A, Title VII, § 702, May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1660, as amended

Pub. L. 111-203, Title XIV, § 1484(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2204. This provision

does not apply to Mr. Winter. Mr. Winter was a co-borrower on the loan, a mortgagor,

and therefore not entitled to bona fide tenant status which requires 90 days notice before

the effective date of a notice to vacate.

Furthermore, the state court complaint initiated by First Citizen is an unlawful

detainer action seeking to recover possession of the property located at 2525 Reed Road,

Escondido, California 92027 (the “Property”). The complaint does not allege any federal

causes of action. Thus, the Court finds Mr. Winter has failed to demonstrate that this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (stating that the presence or absence of federal question

jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” i.e., federal jurisdiction

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly

pleaded complaint) (internal citations omitted); see also Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v.

2 13cv898

Case 3:13-cv-00898-AJB-WMC Document 3 Filed 04/18/13 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

Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (finding no

subject matter jurisdiction where complaint stated only an unlawful detainer claim). 

The Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action because the state court

complaint clearly states that First Citizen, the Plaintiff in this action, is the successor-ininterest to Temecula Valley Bank, which is authorized to do business in California and

the Defendants are residents of California. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A at 5.) Furthermore, the

state court complaint is labeled as a limited civil case, wherein First Citizen seeks less

than $10,000. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks diversity jurisdiction over the

instant matter because the parties are not completely diverse and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (stating that a district court has

diversity jurisdiction over any civil action between citizens of different states so long as

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds this unlawful detainer action does not

raise a federal question and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the matter. As

such, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San Diego Superior Court, North

County Division. The Clerk of Court is instructed to remand the case and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\1.Remand.Unlawful.Detainer.Cases\13cv898.Order 3 .Remand.Unlawful.Detainer.wpd 13cv898

Case 3:13-cv-00898-AJB-WMC Document 3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3