Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02331/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2331-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

DUANE ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Central Mortgage Company filed an unlawful detainer action in California

state court. Defendant Duane Anderson then filed a notice of removal, asserting federal

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because, he argues, his defense or

counterclaim raises federal questions. Anderson also moved for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

The Court is obliged to examine its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, B.C. v.

Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999), and to remand any removed

action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "Where doubt regarding the right

to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court." Matheson v. Progressive

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 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, 556

- 1 - 13cv2331

Case 3:13-cv-02331-LAB-JMA Document 4 Filed 10/03/13 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

U.S. 49, 59–60, 70 (2009). The claims in the complaint arise only under state law; no federal

question is presented. There is no showing that jurisdiction would exist for some other

reason, such as diversity.

Because the notice of removal does not show why this action was removable, it is

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, from which it

was removed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv2331

Case 3:13-cv-02331-LAB-JMA Document 4 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 2