Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00093/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM

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

MAGNUM PROPERTY 

INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN S. CLIPPINGER; ELIZABETH 

MARTIN; LISA ATWELL; and DOES 1-

10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

REMAND (Doc. No. 3)

Presently before the Court is an ex parte motion filed by Magnum Property 

Investments, LLC to remand this unlawful detainer action back to state court. (Doc. No. 3.) 

For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, finding the Defendants’

Notice of Removal is deficient, and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior 

Court.

I. DISCUSSION

Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 

federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 

establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 

Case 3:19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM

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

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 

must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 

1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A defense based on federal law is 

not sufficient to remove an action to federal court. Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (“[N]either an affirmative defense based on federal law . . . nor one based on 

federal preemption . . . renders an action brought in state court removable.”).

Although Defendants have not filed a response to the ex parte motion, “a district 

court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ 

arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 

(9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 

1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district 

courts have an ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” 

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States 

v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 

Here, Defendants’ Notice of Removal asserts this Court has jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The federal statute cited references federal question 

jurisdiction. First, there is no federal question because the unlawful detainer complaint 

invokes California law. (See Doc. No. 1-2 at 2–3.) Generally, “[f]ederal jurisdiction 

typically exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s 

properly pleaded complaint.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The complaint filed in state court solely concerns unlawful detainer under California law 

and, thus, presents no federal question. See Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-

cv-2485-MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff 

filed its Complaint in Superior Court asserting a single claim for unlawful detainer 

premised solely on California law. Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself 

Case 3:19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM

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

present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis 

for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”); see also Sage 

Home Mortg., LLC v. Roohan, No.: 17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

118119, at * (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (same). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction 

does not exist. 

Diversity jurisdiction also fails to provide this Court with jurisdiction as Plaintiff’s 

principal place of business is California and Defendants reside in California. Moreover, the 

amount in controversy in the complaint does not exceed the statutory minimum of $75,000 

required to invoke diversity jurisdiction. “In unlawful detainer actions, . . . the amount of 

damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the 

amount in controversy.” Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10–05478 PJH, 

2011 WL 204322, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). Here, the state court complaint states the 

“amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.) Thus, the total amount 

of damages is well below the $75,000 statutory minimum for diversity jurisdiction. 

However, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to award Plaintiff its just costs and 

expenses incurred in connection with this removal.

II. CONCLUSION 

Because Defendants cannot establish federal jurisdiction, removal was improper. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for remand back to the San Diego Superior Court 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot 

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00093-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3