Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01644/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01644-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

 In accordance with this Court’s Civil Case Procedures relative to “Ex Parte Proceedings,”

Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Robert Mackey with regard to the subject matter of this motion and to meet

and confer. Plaintiff’s counsel states that to date, the only reliable way to communicate with Mr.

Mackey has been via e-mail and on August 1, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel transmitted an e-mail to Mr.

Mackey to give him notice of this Ex Parte Motion and request his response. There has been no response

from Mr. Mackey to date. See Doc. No. 2-1 at 2. 

1 10CV1886

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. KIPPERMAN, Court

Custodian, per U.S.B.C. SD of Cal.,

Case No. 11-05973-B11,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUXURY TOY CLUB LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1644 AJB (POR)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION AND REMANDING

ACTION TO STATE COURT

[Doc. No. 2]

Plaintiff, RICHARD M KIPPERMAN, Court Custodian, per Order of the United States

Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 11-05973-B11 ("Plaintiff"), filed an Ex

Parte Motion to Remand Unlawful Detainer Action to State Court (“Ex Parte Motion”), Doc. No. 2, on

August 2, 2011. The Defendant, LUXURY TOY CLUB LLC, a California Limited Liability Company

(“LTC” or “Defendant”), has not responded in any way to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application.1 For the

reasons set forth below, the court hereby ORDERS the above captioned proceeding, Plaintiff's Unlawful

Detainer action, be REMANDED to back to the San Diego Superior Court, Case

No.37-2011-00045029- CL-CTL-UD for all further proceedings.

Case 3:11-cv-01644-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 4
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

 A copy of the Custodian Order entered May 18, 2011 in that certain United States Bankruptcy

Court San Diego of California, Case No. 11-05973-B11 is attached as Exhibit “A” to the request for

judicial notice, filed concurrently herewith (“RFJN”).

3

 A copy of the Order entered November 12, 2010 (“Receivership Order”), in that certain San

Diego Superior Court (“SDSC”) Case No. 37-2010-00101501-CU-OR-CTL entitled GECMC 2007-C1

PROSPECT STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. LA JOLLA UTC CORP is attached as Exhibit “B”

to the RFJN, filed concurrently herewith.

4

 The unlawful detainer complaint filed against Defendant LTC was assigned SDSC Court Case

Number 37-2011-00045028-CL-UD-CTL (“UD Action”).

5

 LTC has not utilized legal counsel to represent its interests even though California law requires

such entities to only appear by counsel in a court of law. No corporation can appear in a legal

proceeding without counsel in the state of California. See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 CA 4th 1276,

1284. The same is true for a California limited liability company.

2 10CV1886

Background

The Plaintiff is the court appointed Custodian2 and Receiver3 for La Jolla UTC Corporation (“LJ

UTC”) and therefore has possession of the commercial real property located at 1012 Prospect Street,

Suites 300 and 310, La Jolla, California, 92037. 

Suite 300 of the commercial real property is occupied by Defendant LUXURY TOY CLUB

LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“LTC” or “Defendant”). LTC is owned, operated, and

controlled by Robert Mackey (“Mackey”). Suites 300 is a luxury suite in the subject building, overlooking an ocean front view. LTC entered into an eight (8) year lease with LJ UTC on or about February

2007, with a minimum monthly rent of $4,077.50, together with other charges designated in the lease

(“LTC Lease”). While LTC has continued to enjoy the benefits of possession of this luxury suite,

Plaintiff states that LTC has failed to pay the rent pursuant to its lease.

As a consequence, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against the Defendant in the San

Diego Superior Court on June 1, 2011.4 Mackey appeared pro se for LTC,5 by the filing a demur to the

complaint. The demur was scheduled for hearing in the San Diego Superior Court on July 27, 2011 at

1:30 pm . On the day before the hearing, LTC filed a notice of removal on July 26, 2011 (“the Removal

Notices”).

Discussion

The Defendant LTC, appearing pro se through its Chief Executive Officer Robert Mackey,

argues in the notice of removal that the action is removable based on diversity jurisdiction. See Doc. # 1

Case 3:11-cv-01644-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 4
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

6 See Doc. No. 1 at 2.

7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996); Gaus v. Miles,

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709,

712 n.3 (9th Cir.1990).

3 10CV1886

at 2. Though not mentioned in the notice of removal, the Defendant may also intended to argue this

Court has federal question jurisdiction, since that was indicated on the Civil Case Cover Sheet . See

Doc. No. 1 at 3. Upon review of the record, however, the Court finds that this case is not suitable for

removal on either federal question or diversity grounds. 

The Defendant is seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), however,

section1441(b) states that: 

Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on

a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United

States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the

parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which

such action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

The Court notes that the Defendant has acknowledged being domiciled in California. As such, the

removal notice clearly fails to satisfy minimum removal requirements. See Doc. No. 1 at 2. Although the

Defendant claims damages exceeding $75,000.00,6

 the complaint alleges damages of less than

$25,000.00, which is well below the $75,000.00 minimum amount in controversy required to invoke

diversity jurisdiction. Any claim by Defendant for affirmative monetary relief may not be considered

for the purposes of determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Rivert v. Regions Bank, 522

U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Furthermore, the removal statute clearly bars defendants who reside in the state

where the action is filed to remove a state court action based solely on diversity jurisdiction where the

record reflects no support for a finding that the minimum amount in controversy has been met.7

While not set forth in Defendant’s arguments in the notice of removal, the Defendant indicated

Federal Question Jurisdiction as the basis for jurisdiction on the Civil Cover Sheet filed with this Court. 

See Doc. No. 1 at 3. However, since the complaint alleges only state law claims and the Defendant has

failed to articulate any basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to

satisfy section 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S.

804 (1986) (holding that in order for a state law claim to satisfy section 1331, it must be clear from the

Case 3:11-cv-01644-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4 10CV1886

face of the plaintiff's complaint that a federal law creating a cause of action is an essential element of the

state law claim). 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Action is REMANDED to

the San Diego Superior Court for all further proceedings.

DATED: August 10, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01644-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 08/10/11 Page 4 of 4