Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01566/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441rl Removal- Rent, Lease, &amp; Ejectment

---

1

3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

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

FENTON MISSION VALLEY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIRANDA et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT AND 

DISMISSING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT 

[ECF No. 1, 3-5]

On August 4, 2017, Defendants Andres Miranda, Suzette Martinez, and Naomi 

Ramos (“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this unlawful 

detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. 

Based on the reasoning below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

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

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “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. It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the 

Case 3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

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

merits of any dispute until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to 

adjudicate the issues presented. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 

94-95 (1988). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their 

jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to 

[its] existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 

278 (1977) (citations omitted). 

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. Here, Defendants assert federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal 

(“NTR”), Dkt. No. 1 at 2. For an action to be removed on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of 

action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of 

substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers 

Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). The presence or absence of federal 

question jurisdiction “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 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987). It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of 

a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and 

even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”

Id. at 393. 

A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff Fenton 

Mission Valley, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer 

under California state law. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2-5. In the notice of removal, Defendants 

argue that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the complaint for the 

following reasons: (1) the unlawful detainer complaint is subject to strict notice 

requirements; (2) Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint based on a 

“3-Day Notice” that failed to comply with Section 1161(2) of the Code of Civil 

Case 3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

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

Procedure; and (3) Defendant’s demurrer is a pleading that depends on the 

“determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal.” NTR, Dkt. 

No. 1 at 2. 

Defendants’ argument fails for two independent reasons. First, the notice 

requirements referenced in Defendants’ demurrer arise under state, not federal, law. The 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) is not a federal law. It is a California law that defines

and explains what is required to bring an unlawful detainer action. See California Code 

of Civil Procedure § 1161. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to identify a federal law 

that could form the basis of Defendants’ removal to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Second, even if Defendants had properly argued that Plaintiff

violated a federal law, it would not matter because the presence or absence of federal 

question jurisdiction “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 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987). Accordingly, Defendants’ assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is 

without merit and Plaintiff’s state law unlawful detainer claim is not removable. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior 

Court of the State of California for San Diego County. Defendants’ pending motions for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, therefore, are denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3