Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00003/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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 - 12cv3 WQH-NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SSFT PROPERTIES II LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv3 WQH (NLS)

ORDER

vs.

DAVID BACKE; DOES 1-10 inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff SSFT

Properties II LLC. (ECF No. 3). 

I. Background

On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint for unlawful

detainer in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was assigned

case number 37-2011-00031565-CL-UD-SC. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3). The Complaint alleges that

Plaintiff is entitled to possession of real property located at 495 Allview Court, Chula Vista,

California. Id. at 3-4. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff served Defendants with written

notice requiring them to vacate the property and Defendants failed to vacate the property. Id.

at 4. The Complaint alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law, seeking

possession of the property and damages in the sum of $70.00 per day from September 16, 2011

until Defendants vacate the premises. Id. at 6. 

Case 3:12-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/23/12 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 - 12cv3 WQH-NLS

On January 3, 2012, Defendant David Backe, proceeding pro se, removed the action

to this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Notice of Removal alleges that federal question jurisdiction

exists because “the Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises failed to comply with The

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 12 U.S.C. § 5220.” Id. at 2. Defendant contends that

“[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendant’s answer, a pleading, depend[s] on

the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Id. at 3. 

On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 3).

Plaintiff alleges that federal question jurisdiction does not exist becase there is no federal claim

in the Complaint. 

II. Discussion 

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on either

federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “The presence or absence of

federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.... [T]he existence of a defense based upon federal law

is insufficient to support jurisdiction.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179,

1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). “The removal statute is strictly

construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.”

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airline, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

The presumption against removal means that “the defendant always has the burden of

establishing that removal is proper.” Id. A district court must remand a case to state court “if

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

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction referenced in the Notice of Removal is that

Defendant has a defense to the Complaint based upon Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with

a federal statute. “[T]he existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to

support [federal question] jurisdiction.” Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183. This Court does not have

federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. 

Case 3:12-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/23/12 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 - 12cv3 WQH-NLS

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff SSFT

Properties II LLC (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is

REMANDED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the

County of San Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned case number 37-2011-

00031565-CL-UD-SC. 

DATED: January 23, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 3