Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02671/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02671-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 – 15cv2671 

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 

28620 GORDON HILL RD. TRUST 

DATED 10/2/2015, 

 Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-02671-BAS(JLB) 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION 

TO STATE COURT FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION v. 

CHRISTOPHER J. EASTERLING,

ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

On October 7, 2015, plaintiff 28620 Gordon Hill Rd. Trust dated 10/2/15, U.S. 

Financial L.P., as trustee, (“Gordon Hill Trust”) commenced this unlawful detainer 

action based on California Civil Procedure Code §§ 1161, et seq. against defendants 

Christopher J. Easterling and Rhonda L. Easterling in the San Diego Superior Court. 

On October 27, 2015, Feliciano V. Guevarra II was added as a defendant. (ECF No. 

1-2 at 27.) On November 30, 2015, Defendants removed this action to federal court 

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ Notice of Removal 

is deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-02671-BAS-JLB Document 13 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 15cv2671 

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 

I. BACKGROUND 

 This case stems from the purportedly unlawful detention of real property 

located 28620 Gordon Hill Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 (“the Property”). 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been in possession of the Property 

without Plaintiff's authorization or consent since October 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1-2 at 

Ex. A, Complaint (“Compl.”) at ¶ 7.) On or about that date, Plaintiff became the 

owner of the Property by purchasing the Property in a trustee’s sale following 

foreclosure proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 5.) 

 Plaintiff filed its complaint on October 7, 2015 in California Superior Court 

for the County of San Diego. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks restitution and 

possession of the Property and damages and costs of suit. On November 30, 2015, 

Defendants filed a notice of removal, alleging diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) 

On the same day, Defendants Christopher J. Easterling and Feliciano V. Guevarra, II 

also filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); 

O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong 

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the 

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also

Case 3:15-cv-02671-BAS-JLB Document 13 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 15cv2671 

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 

Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); 

O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. 

 It is well-established that “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)). 

III. ANALYSIS 

In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must 

prove that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To determine whether 

the amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he district court may consider 

whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is 

in controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 

1997). In cases in which the plaintiff’s state court complaint does not specify an 

exact damage figure, the removing defendant “must provide evidence that it is ‘more 

likely than not’ that the amount in controversy” satisfies the federal diversity 

jurisdictional amount requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 

398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Defendants fail to satisfy the amount in controversy 

requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 Defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that the “amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 3.) However, the complaint filed in San Diego 

Superior Court was filed as a “Limited Civil Case” seeking less than $10,000. 

(Compl. at p. 1.) The prayer for relief seeks “damages at the rate of $133.33 per day 

Case 3:15-cv-02671-BAS-JLB Document 13 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 15cv2671 

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 

from October 6, 2015, and for each day thereafter that Defendants remain in 

possession of the subject premises.” (Id. at p. 4.) Given the length of time that has 

accrued, the damages sought may exceed $10,000, but Defendants have not 

demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy will exceed 

$75,000. Defendants do not specify in the Notice of Removal how they determined 

that the amount in controversy “exceeds $75,000,” but if they were considering the 

value of the property, their calculations were in error. 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. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. 

Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) 

(citing Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)). Accordingly, 

Defendants have failed to meet the amount in controversy threshold required to 

establish federal diversity jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332. 

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

Because Defendants fail to establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, removal was improper and the Court REMANDS this 

action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Additionally, 

the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 3), Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 4), and Defendants’ 

motion to strike and motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 10.). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 5, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-02671-BAS-JLB Document 13 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 4