Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00549/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

- 1 - 10cv0549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-0549

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO REMAND AND (2)

DISMISSING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE CASES

(Doc. Nos. 3, 8.)

vs.

PHILIP F. KENNEDY, DANA L.

KENNEDY, DOES 1–5,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services LLC’s motion to remand case

to state court. (Doc. No. 3.) Also before this Court is Defendants Philip F. Kennedy and Dana L.

Kennedy’s (“Defendants”) motion to consolidate cases. (Doc. No. 8.) For the reasons stated

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand and DISMISSES Defendants’ motion to

consolidate cases.

BACKGROUND

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

California for the County of San Diego on February 11, 2010. (Doc. No. 1 at Appendix 3.) Soon

thereafter, Defendants filed a notice of removal in federal court. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff filed the

motion to remand on May 12, 2010. (Doc. No. 3.) And finally, Defendants filed the motion to

consolidate cases on August 19, 2010. (Doc. No. 8.) 

MOTION TO REMAND

Case 3:10-cv-00549-JLS-AJB Document 9 Filed 09/17/10 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 - 10cv0549

I. Legal Standard

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. 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). 

II. Analysis

The pleadings in this case require a discussion of both federal question jurisdiction and

diversity jurisdiction. Each will be discussed in turn. 

Defendants’ notice of removal alleges that the district court has jurisdiction because the

Defendants’ “rights to due process of law were denied.” (Doc No. 1 at 2.) This can only be

construed as requesting removal under federal question jurisdiction. 

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

complaint. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 US 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 state law. 

(Doc. No. 1 at Appendix 3.) Defendants do not contest this and state only that their due process

rights were denied. Even assuming that these allegations are true, the allegations cannot be taken

into consideration for determining whether removal is appropriate. Consequently, there is no

federal question basis for removal.

Defendants make a claim for diversity jurisdiction in their opposition to the motion to

remand. (Doc. No. 4.) Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiffs and defendants be of

different citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Defendants claim that diversity jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff is a “foreign limited liability

company” domiciled in Delaware and the value in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. No. 4 at

Case 3:10-cv-00549-JLS-AJB Document 9 Filed 09/17/10 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

- 3 - 10cv0549

2.) Plaintiff’s complaint indicates, however, that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. 

(Doc. No. 1 at Appendix 3.) Because one of the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction is not

met, there is no diversity jurisdiction basis for removal. 

III. Conclusion

Defendants fail to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. 

A look at Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that there is no federal question and that the amount in

controversy is not more than $75,000. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

Because this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the present action, Defendants’

motion to consolidate is DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

The Court further DISMISSES Defendant’s motion to consolidate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00549-JLS-AJB Document 9 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 3