Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01257/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01257-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

19-cv-01257-AJB-LL

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., its assignees 

and/or successors

Plaintiff,

v.

Maribel Preciado; Ismael Rodriguez; and 

DOES 1-10 inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-01257-AJB-LL

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR REMAND; 

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

(3) FORBIDDING DEFENDANT 

FROM REMOVING THIS ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 3, 6.)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) 

motion to remand, (Doc. No. 6), and Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis,

(Doc. No. 3). For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, DENIES

Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01257-AJB-LL Document 12 Filed 12/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-cv-01257-AJB-LL

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

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 

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.”). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, a defendant must remove the action within thirty days 

of receiving service of the summons and complaint. Here, the summons and complaint 

were served on October 24 and October 25, 2018. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 5.) The removal was 

not filed until July 9, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) This is over eight months after the service of 

summons and complaint. Therefore, the removal is untimely.

Furthermore, “[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). Here, as the Court has previously held, there 

is no federal question jurisdiction because the unlawful detainer complaint invokes 

California law. (See generally Doc. No. 1-3.) The complaint filed in state court solely 

concerns an unlawful detainer action 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 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 *4–5 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) 

(holding federal jurisdiction does not exist when a complaint alleges a single claim for 

unlawful detainer which is a California state law cause of action). Accordingly, federal 

Case 3:19-cv-01257-AJB-LL Document 12 Filed 12/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-cv-01257-AJB-LL

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

question jurisdiction does not exist. 

Diversity jurisdiction is generally prohibited if any defendant is a citizen of the state 

where the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). As the Court has previously held, 

diversity jurisdiction also fails to provide this Court with jurisdiction because at least one 

Defendant resides in California. (See Doc. No. 1-3 at 2.) Thus, this Court does not have 

subject matter jurisdiction on diversity grounds. 

Defendant also argues that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because the 

prosecution of the unlawful detainer action in state court has violated his civil rights. The 

Ninth Circuit held:

A petition for removal under § 1443(1) must satisfy the two-part 

test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 

U.S. 780, 788–92, 794–804 (1966) and City of Greenwood, Miss. 

v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966). “First, the petitioners 

must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given 

to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial 

civil rights.” California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 

1970). “Second, petitioners must assert that the state courts will 

not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by 

reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that 

purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal 

rights.” Id.

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Defendant fails to 

satisfy either part of this test. Defendant has not identified a state law preventing him from 

raising his federal claims in state court nor has he shown the basis for an equally firm 

prediction that he will be unable to protect his federal rights in state court. Accordingly, 

removal is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

This Court does not have jurisdiction and accordingly, this Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to remand and DENIES Defendant’s IFP motion as moot.

II. CONCLUSION 

Because Defendants cannot establish this Court has jurisdiction, removal was 

improper. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for remand, DENIES Defendant’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and REMANDS this action to San Diego 

Case 3:19-cv-01257-AJB-LL Document 12 Filed 12/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-cv-01257-AJB-LL

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

Superior Court. This is the second time that Defendant has sought removal of Plaintiff’s 

action. The first case, 19-cv-00361-AJB-LL, was remanded on the same basis as the current 

case. Based on this history, Defendant is ORDERED not to remove or attempt to remove 

this action again. If he does, he will be subject to sanctions, including Plaintiff’s attorney 

fees, or contempt proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01257-AJB-LL Document 12 Filed 12/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4