Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00746/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 - 11cv746

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as intenture Trustee under the

indenture relating to IMH ASSETS CORP.,

collateralized asset-backed bonds, Series

2005-7,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-746 JLS (BLM)

ORDER: SUA SPONTE

REMANDING CASE

vs.

GALEN LEFTON, MEL ANDERSON,

RICK BAILEY, et al.,

Defendants.

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

California for the County of San Diego on September 24, 2010. (Doc. No. 1 Ex. 1 (UD Compl.).) On

April 11, 2011, Defendant Galen Lefton removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1 (Notice of

Removal).) The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter and sua sponte remands the case

to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.

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.

Case 3:11-cv-00746-JLS-BLM Document 2 Filed 04/12/11 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

1

 Section 1443 creates federal removal jurisdiction for actions brought against defendants who

cannot enforce in state court “any law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

- 2 - 11cv746

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).

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction encompasses federal question jurisdiction and diversity

jurisdiction. The Court discusses each in turn.

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

complaint. Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 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 law. (UD Compl.)

Defendant does not contest this and argue instead that “Defendant alleges violations of the California

Penal Code, [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act], [and] violation of civil rights, all of which constitute

federal questions.” (Notice of Removal 3.) Even assuming that these allegations are true, they cannot

be taken into consideration for determining whether removal is appropriate. Consequently, there is

no federal question basis for removal.

There is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. 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. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not exceed

$25,000. (UD Compl.) Because at least one of the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction is not

met, there is no diversity jurisdiction basis for removal.

Defendant likewise fails to show that removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 14431

 because

he has not referenced a California “statute or . . . constitutional provision that purports to command

the state courts to ignore . . . federal rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir.

2006). Defendant vaguely alleges that California state statutes governing judicial foreclosure “affect[]

an illegal taking of property under color of law [such] that even freedom of speech itself is

suppressed.” (Notice of Removal 4.) Even assuming that these allegations are true, they are too vague

to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under § 1443. See, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Gutierrez

Case 3:11-cv-00746-JLS-BLM Document 2 Filed 04/12/11 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 - 11cv746

Hernandez, 2010 WL 4054451, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010) (“Mr. Thornton’s bare allegation that

the state court unlawful detainer action has deprived him of the “right to own property without

suffering fraudulent foreclosure and eviction” does not establish a basis for removal.” (citation

omitted)); HSBC Bank USA v. Cabal, 2010 WL 3769092, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010) (“Even if

Defendant’s claims were based on laws providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial

equality, his request for removal would fail because he has not alleged that the denial of his federal

rights can be predicted from a state statute or a constitutional provision but rather asserts that

California state courts ‘“systematically trample[ ]” litigant’s rights in unlawful detainer actions.’ This

is insufficient to allow removal under § 1443.” (citation omitted)).

Defendant fails to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

Thus, this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.

The Clerk SHALL close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00746-JLS-BLM Document 2 Filed 04/12/11 Page 3 of 3