Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02167/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a)rp Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS

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

MISSION CAPITAL PROPERTIES, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEAN DOMINGUEZ, PAIGE 

DOMINGUEZ, AND DOES 1-10, 

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 1)

This notice of removal represents Removing Defendants Sean and Paige 

Dominguez’s (“Removing Defendants”) second attempt at removing the same unlawful 

detainer action to this district court.1(Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court again sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

After a review of Plaintiff Mission Capital Properties, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint 

and Removing Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court notes that the only cause of action 

 

1 Removing Defendants first filed a notice of removal of the same complaint in 17cv993-

AJB-JLB on May 15, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court sua sponte remanded the action on 

May 17, 2017. (Doc. No. 4.)

Case 3:17-cv-02167-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS

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

asserted in the present matter is for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

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 from state 

court to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the 

matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” 

Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Moreover, there is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction and the party 

seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is necessary if it appears from the 

face of the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed 

action. See id. (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance.”).

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is bringing a single cause of action against Removing 

Defendants for unlawful detainer. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) Thus, because this is a purely state law 

cause of action, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and must remand the 

matter. See Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411, 

at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the 

complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”); see also 

Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. Lam, No. SACV 11-32-JST (RNBx), 2011 

WL 781243, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011) (same).

Removing Defendants assert that they have federal question jurisdiction as their 

claim is based upon a notice that Plaintiff’s signed that references 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (Doc. 

No. 1 at 2–3.) However, this statute does not bestow jurisdiction to Removing Defendants 

to have their case heard in federal court. Instead, the Court highlights for Removing 

Defendants’ benefit that the purpose of that statute is to “provide authority and facilities” 

Case 3:17-cv-02167-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS

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

to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” See 12 U.S.C. § 5201(1). 

In addition, the face of the Complaint clearly shows that this Court does not possess 

diversity jurisdiction over the matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction 

there must be “complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy 

requirement of $75,000 must be met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint clearly 

states that Plaintiff seeks $70.00 per day in damages, beginning on March 7, 2017, for each 

day Removing Defendants remain in possession of the subject premises. (Doc. No. 1 at 

11.) As of the date of this Order that amounts to a little over $16,000.00, which is far less

than the $75,000.00 needed for diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the notice of removal 

provides that both Plaintiff and Removing Defendants are citizens of California. (Id. at 2.) 

Thus, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1). 

In sum, the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction in the instant 

action. Thus, remand to the San Diego Superior Court is required.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court. Removing 

Defendants are warned that any further attempts to remove their unlawful detainer action 

to federal court will result in the Court initiating proceedings to hold them in contempt of 

Court for violation of this Order or imposing pre-filing restrictions on them as vexatious 

litigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02167-AJB-AGS Document 5 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3