Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00769/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00769-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG 

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 

JAY SADRIEH TTEE JAY JALAL 

SADRIETH & SADRIETH 

REVOCABLE TRUST, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FARRAH PIRAHANCI-NAZEMI, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG 

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION (Doc. No. 1); AND 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT (Doc. No. 2) 

 On April 17, 2017, Defendant Farrah Pirahanci-Nazemi (“Removing Defendant”), 

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

Superior Court by Plaintiff Jay Sadrieh TTEE Jay Jalal Sadrieth & Sadrieth Revocable 

Trust (“Plaintiff”), (Doc. No. 1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 

No. 2.) 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. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-00769-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG 

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).

 Moreover, “[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. § 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. 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). 

                                                                

1

 Pinpoint cites refer to the CM/ECF page numbers and not the automatically generated page numbers 

on the original document. 

Case 3:17-cv-00769-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG 

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

 The Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the notice of removal affirmatively shows 

that the Complaint alleges only a single claim for unlawful detainer, which is a California 

state law cause of action. (See Generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Thus, 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.” See 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-KJN-PS, 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 law. Because a claim for 

unlawful detainer does not by 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.”); 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)). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal 

question. 

 Moreover, Removing Defendant does not claim that removal is appropriate based 

on diversity jurisdiction. The Court notes however that both parties are residents of San 

Diego, California. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3.) Additionally, the Complaint states on its face that 

the demand for damages includes rent in the amount of $5200.00 beginning on March 1, 

2017, and attorney fees. (Id. at 5.) As of the date of this Order, that only amounts to less 

than $10,000.00, which is far less than the $75,000 needed to qualify for diversity 

jurisdiction. Consequently, as the Complaint does not present a federal question, and 

diversity jurisdiction is not present, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-00769-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG 

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

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2017 

 

 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00769-AJB-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4