Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00664/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00664-0/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-00664-GPC-NLS

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

PROGRESS CONSTRUCTION CO., 

INC., a corporation dba PROGRESS 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL KING ET AL,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

On April 3, 2017, Defendant Daniel King filed a notice of removal of this unlawful 

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

Dkt. No. 1. Having reviewed Defendant’s notice of removal, the 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. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 

(1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter 

Case 3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS

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

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 ‘wellpleaded 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, 482 U.S. at 392. A review of the state court summons and complaint in this 

case shows that Plaintiff alleges a unlawful detainer claim under California state law. 

(Dkt. No. 1-2.) 

“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 his notice of removal, Defendant alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the 

action pursuant to a federal question. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3, ¶¶ 5-9.) Defendant contends 

that there is a federal question based on a notice which expressly references and 

incorporates the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS

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

at 3, ¶ 7) He alleges that this statute will be drawn into the issues in this case because 

Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer notice was defective under 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Id.) 

Defendant’s alleged federal “claim” is actually a defense or counterclaim against 

Plaintiff. Defenses and counterclaims, however, are not considered in evaluating whether 

a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff's complaint. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or 

anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal 

court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's 

complaint.”). As such, Defendant’s allegation does not establish federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

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

jurisdiction and 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: April 3, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00664-GPC-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3