Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02419/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02419-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441ac Removal- Account Receivable

---

1

16-CV-2419-AJB-DHB

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

CAM IX TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE T. BOWDLER AND DOES 1 

TO 10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2419-AJB-DHB

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION (Doc. No. 1);

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT (Doc. No. 3);

On September 27, 2016, Defendant Denise Bowdler (“Removing Defendant”), 

acting pro se, filed a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego 

Superior Court, (Doc. No. 1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 

3.) The notice of removal seeks to remove an unlawful detainer proceeding initiated in San 

Diego Superior Court by Plaintiff Cam IX Trust (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 1 at 1-3.) For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, and DENIES AS MOOT Removing Defendant’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 3.)

///

Case 3:16-cv-02419-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-2419-AJB-DHB

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction 

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action to federal 

court only if the district court would have original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish 

that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability. Luther v. 

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). However, a 

plaintiff seeking remand has the burden to prove that an express exception to removal 

exists. See Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 698 (2003).

“[F]ederal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own 

jurisdiction[.]” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). Accordingly, 

“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 

court must dismiss the action.”). 

DISCUSSION

Removing Defendant alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1441. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)1 Federal question 

jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Jurisdiction in 

federal question cases is “governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides 

that federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

 

1 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF page numbers and not the automatically generated page numbers 

on the original document. 

Case 3:16-cv-02419-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-2419-AJB-DHB

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

386, 392-93 (1987). Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity among 

opposing parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Removing Defendant claims that federal question jurisdiction exists because “the 

complaint presents federal questions” and that “Defendant’s answer depend[s] on the 

determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Doc. No. 1

¶¶ 6, 10.) The complaint attached as Exhibit A to the notice of removal, however, 

affirmatively shows that Removing Defendant’s complaint alleges only a single claim for 

unlawful detainer, which is a California state law cause of action. (Id. at 6.) Wells Fargo 

Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) 

(“An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a 

creature of California law.”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010))). 

Removing Defendant also claims that removal is appropriate based on diversity 

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 6.) Removing Defendant does not plead any more facts to 

support this argument. Looking at the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a Delaware 

Statutory Trust and Removing Defendant is a citizen of California, residing at the property 

in question in the unlawful detainer action. (Id. at 6, 7.) The complaint also states on its 

face that the demand for damages does not exceed $10,000. (Id. at 6.) Moreover, Plaintiff 

asks for damages in the amount of $102.00 per day as allowed by law from 07/26/2016. 

(Id. at 8.) As of the day of this order, that only amounts to $1224.00, which is far less than 

the $75,000 needed to qualify for diversity jurisdiction.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not “necessarily raise a stated federal 

issue, actually disputed and substantial,” which this Court “may entertain without 

disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial 

responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 

314 (2005); see also Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485- MCE-KJNPS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its Complaint in 

Superior Court asserting a single claim for unlawful detainer premised solely on California 

Case 3:16-cv-02419-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-2419-AJB-DHB

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

law. Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not itself present a federal question or 

necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction 

appears on the face of the Complaint.”). As the complaint does not present a federal 

question, and diversity jurisdiction is not present, the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San 

Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Removing 

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02419-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 4