Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00441/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 11cv441 WQH JMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUST COMPANY, as trustee,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv441 WQH JMA

ORDER

vs.

KARL W. WILSON; DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On March 3, 2011, Defendant Karl W. Wilson initiated this action by filing a Notice

of Removal from the Superior Court of California, for the County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1).

Although the Notice of Removal asserts that Plaintiff’s summons and complaint is attached as

Exhibit 1, the only attachment is a summons on an unlawful detainer - eviction. The complaint

is not attached. 

On March 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order that stated: 

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish the “actual

existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” See Thompson, 99 F.3d at

353. Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case

should not be remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction on or before March 30, 2011. If Defendant fails to establish

that subject matter jurisdiction exists, this Court will remand the case

to state court. 

(ECF No. 3 at 1-2). 

On April 4, 2011, Defendant Wilson filed an Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss the Entire

Action on the ground that the filing party had no standing to initiate this action. (ECF No. 4).

Defendant Wilson contends that in early March he met Sondra Rogers who he believed to

Case 3:11-cv-00441-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 04/11/11 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

- 2 - 11cv441 WQH JMA

work for a law firm that helped consumers defend against unlawful detainer actions.

Defendant Wilson contends that he paid Ms. Rogers and she assured him that an attorney

would stop a scheduled ‘lock-out’ and all other actions related to his unlawful detainer action.

Defendant Wilson contends that Ms. Rogers asked permission to sign a document for him, but

did not tell him what it was or what she intended to do with the document. Defendant Wilson

contends that he learned of the Notice of Removal after it was filed. Defendant Wilson also

contends that he recently discovered that Ms. Rogers does not work for an attorney. Defendant

Wilson states that he “deeply regrets the filing of the Notice of Removal and related documents

....” (ECF No. 4-1 at 9). 

The Court concludes that Defendant Wilson has failed to establish that subject matter

jurisdiction exists. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED to the

California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, where it was originally filed and

assigned Case No. 37-2011-00042444-CL-UD-CTL. The Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss the

Entire Action filed by Defendant Wilson (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: April 11, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00441-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 2