Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02780/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SD COASTLINE LP,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12cv2780 BTM(KSC)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

LARRY PASTOR, PERLA M. PASTOR,

and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

On November 12, 2012, Defendant Perla M. Pastor removed this unlawful detainer

action from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Ms. Pastor contends that

removal is proper because the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the matter. 

However, upon review of the underlying Complaint, the unlawful detainer action was

brought pursuant to state law and does not arise under federal law as required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. Whether a claim “arises under” federal law 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.” Caterpillar v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Ms. Pastor contends that the Court has federal question

jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s notice to vacate the Property was defective under 12 U.S.C.

section 5220. However, it is “settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court

on the basis of a federal defense.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,

463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).

Furthermore, the Court has no basis for concluding that diversity jurisdiction exists. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While the Notice of Removal states that the action originally could

have been filed in this Court pursuant to “§ 1441(a) and/or (b)” (ECF No. 1 at 2), Ms. Pastor

1 12cv2780 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:12-cv-02780-BTM-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 2
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

appears to rely solely on federal question jurisdiction, and there is nothing to support

diversity jurisdiction from the face of the complaint. See id. at 2-3; Compl. at 1. Therefore,

§ 1441(b) is inapplicable. In addition, defendants may not remove an action to federal court

if they are citizens of the state in which the action is brought, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and as

shown by the nature of the Complaint, Ms. Pastor is a citizen of California.

The removing defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper,

and the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to

state court for further proceedings. 

DATED: December 3, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12cv2780 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:12-cv-02780-BTM-KSC Document 4 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 2