Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01938/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01938-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441pr Petition for Removal

---

1

19cv1938 AJB BLM

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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, As Trustee for 

Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-8, 

Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, 

Series 2005-8, its assignees and/or 

successors,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALEM SOMO and DOES 1-10, 

Inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1938 AJB BLM

ORDER:

SUA SPONTE REMANDING THE 

CASE BACK TO SAN DIEGO 

SUPERIOR COURT

Defendant Salem Somo (“Defendant”) removed this unlawful detainer case to 

federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) Although no motion to remand has been filed, the Court has a 

continuous duty to evaluate its jurisdiction over cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(3). Thus, for 

the reasons herein, the Court REMANDS this action back to San Diego Superior Court.

I. DISCUSSION

Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 

federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 

establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-01938-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1938 AJB BLM

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

1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 

must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 

1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 

Although Plaintiffs have not moved the Court to remand, “a district court’s duty to 

establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See 

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 

(9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an 

‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo 

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. 

Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331, 1441(a) and 1446. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiff 

“expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 

2009.’” For the reasons explained below, the Court does not have federal question 

jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over this action. 

First, there is no federal question because the unlawful detainer complaint only

invokes California law. (See Doc. No. 1 at 6-7.) Generally, “[f]ederal jurisdiction typically 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 

pleaded complaint.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). The 

complaint filed in state court solely concerns unlawful detainer under California law and

does not even reference a federal statute as Defendant suggests. See 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01938-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1938 AJB BLM

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

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.”); see also Sage Home Mortg., LLC v. Roohan, No.: 17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA, 

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118119, at * (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (same). Accordingly, federal 

question jurisdiction does not exist. 

Diversity jurisdiction also fails to provide this Court with jurisdiction as Plaintiffs’

principal place of business is California and Defendant resides in California. Moreover, the 

amount in controversy in the complaint does not exceed the statutory minimum of $75,000 

required to invoke diversity jurisdiction. “In unlawful detainer actions, . . . the amount of 

damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the 

amount in controversy.” Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10–05478 PJH, 

2011 WL 204322, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). Here, the state court complaint states the 

“amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Thus, the total amount of 

damages is well below the $75,000 statutory minimum for diversity jurisdiction. 

II. CONCLUSION 

Because Defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, 

removal was improper. The Court, sua sponte, REMANDS this case back to the San Diego 

Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court Clerk is ORDERED to 

then close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01938-AJB-BLM Document 4 Filed 10/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3