Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00971/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

A&J Properties,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv0971-GPC-WVG

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

vs.

Cindy Kurtz and Gary Kurtz, et al. ,

Defendant.

On April 23, 2013, Defendants Cindy Kurtz and Gary Kurtz filed a notice of

removal of this unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff A & J Properites filed a motion to

remand the action to state court. (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiff has also filed ex parte motions

to shorten time for the motion to remend, or, in the alternative, seeks a sua sponte

ruling remanding the action to state court. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 7.) Defendants filed a response

in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time. (Dkt. No. 6.) Having reviewed

Defendants’ notice of removal, this Court finds it does not have subject matter

jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action

to state court. 

DISCUSSION

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank

Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power

authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch.

- 1 - 13cv0971-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-00971-GPC-WVG Document 8 Filed 06/17/13 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

Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related

to federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v.

Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93–94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v.

Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed

by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action can only be removed if it could

have originally been brought in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

386, 392, 107 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). Thus,

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 Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers

Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983). Alternatively, a federal

court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different

states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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., 482 U.S. at 392. A review of the state court complaint

in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a single unlawful detainer claim under

California state law. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) It also alleges that the amount demanded does

not exceed $10,000 and seeks possession only. (Id.)

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking

removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.1988). “Federal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In the notice of removal, Defendants allege that the Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to diversity under §1332. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Defendant asserts there is

- 2 - 13cv0971-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-00971-GPC-WVG Document 8 Filed 06/17/13 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

another related action for declaratory relief against Bank of America. (Id.) 

Defendants assert that together, these action show complete diversity of citizenship. 

Defendants state that they are citizens of the State of California, and do not contest

Plaintiff’s citizenship. (Id. at 3.) Defendants further contend that their damages

exceed $75,000.(Id.) However, the Court looks to the Complaint to see whether

diversity exists. The complaint states that the amount in controversy does not

exceed $10,000. The complaint also states all the parties are citizens of California.

The Court declines to review a purportedly related case that has not been

consolidated nor has been brought pursuant to the appropriate removal statute. 

Thus, the Court finds Defendants have failed to show that this Court has diversity

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 14, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv0971-GPC-WVG

Case 3:13-cv-00971-GPC-WVG Document 8 Filed 06/17/13 Page 3 of 3