Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02239/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

-1- 17cv2239-MMA (BGS) 

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 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, an Officer of the United States 

of America, Successor and Assigns, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ERICA SMITH, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2239-MMA (BGS)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION; 

AND DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2] 

 

 On November 2, 2017, Defendant Erica Smith (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, 

filed a notice of removal in this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court for the 

County of San Diego, and simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). See Doc. Nos. 1, 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 

479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts possess only that power authorized by 

the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 

Case 3:17-cv-02239-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 -2- 17cv2239-MMA (BGS) 

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

541 (1986). Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1332(a)(1), a federal 

district court has jurisdiction over “all actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the dispute is between 

citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Supreme Court has interpreted § 

1332 to require “complete diversity of citizenship,” meaning each plaintiff must be 

diverse from each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-68 (1996). 

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1441(a), provides for removal of a civil action 

from state to federal court if the case could have originated in federal court. If a matter is 

removable solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, the action may 

not be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum 

state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 

The statute is construed strictly against removal, and “[f]ederal 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). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant alleges in her notice of removal that diversity and federal question 

jurisdiction justify removal. See Doc. No. 1 at 2.1

 Regarding diversity jurisdiction, 

Defendant asserts “[t]here is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties” 

because Defendant is a citizen of California and that Plaintiff Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs (“Plaintiff”) “is incorporated in a state other than California and its principal 

place of business are located in states other than California.” See id. at 2-3. Defendant’s 

general conclusion regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship, however, is insufficient to establish 

that the parties are diverse. 

Moreover, even assuming that the parties are diverse, Defendant has not 

demonstrated that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Upon review 

of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court notes that the action was filed in state court as a 

                                                                

1

 All citations to specific page numbers refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. 

Case 3:17-cv-02239-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 -3- 17cv2239-MMA (BGS) 

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

“limited” civil case where the damages sought do not exceed $10,000. See Doc. No. 1 at 

8. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Here, Defendant 

summarily claims “the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, 

exclusive of costs and interests.” Doc. No. 1 at 3. However, Plaintiff’s complaint 

describes the damages at stake as “not exceed[ing] $10,000” and seeks damages in the 

amount of “$40.00 per day from May 1, 2017.” Doc. No. 1 at 8, 10. Thus, Defendant 

has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, removal is not proper under diversity jurisdiction. 

Regarding federal question jurisdiction, Defendant alleges “this matter is one that 

may be removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because it is a civil action 

based upon the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.” Doc. No. 1 at 2. “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.’” Deutsche Bank Nat. 

Trust Co. v. Ghosal, 2014 WL 5587199, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (citing 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). A review of the attached state 

court complaint reveals that Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for unlawful detainer 

under California state law. See Doc. No. 1 at 8. Thus, Defendant has not shown that 

removal is proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See id. at *2 (“This Court 

has no jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, which are brought pursuant to state 

law and fall strictly within the province of the state court.”). Further, “[w]hile 

Defendants may seek to raise a defense based on federal law in response to Plaintiff’s 

unlawful detainer claim, any defenses based on federal law must generally be raised in 

the state court action and do not provide a basis for removal.” Id. As such, Defendant’s 

allegations are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction, and removal is not 

Case 3:17-cv-02239-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 -4- 17cv2239-MMA (BGS) 

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

proper under federal questions jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this 

action back to state court.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of Court is instructed to 

return the case to state court forthwith and close this action. 

Date: November 3, 2017 _____________________________

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                                                

2

 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to proceed IFP. 

Case 3:17-cv-02239-MMA-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4