Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01325/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01325-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

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

DAISON, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMY LONTAYO, and DOES 1-10,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 16-cv-1325 JAH(JLB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(DOC. #2) AND GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND TO STATE COURT AND

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(DOC. #3)

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Daison, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against

Jimmy Lontayo and Does 1 through 10 in the Superior Court of California, County of San

Diego. The complaint alleges only state law claims and states that it is a limited civil case

with a demand under $10,000. On June 2, 2016, Defendant Jimmy Lontayo, appearing

pro se, filed a notice of removal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See Docs. #1, 2). On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff Daison, LLC filed an

ex parte motion to remand to state court and request for attorney’s fees (See Doc. #3). 

On June 13, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand and

request for attorney’s fees. (See Doc. #5). On June 22, 2016, Defendant filed an

amended opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (See Doc. #6). For the reasons set forth below,

the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the complaint and therefore grants Plaintiff’s

motion to remand the matter to state court for all further proceedings, and denies

16cv1325

Case 3:16-cv-01325-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/16 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

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff moves to remand this action to state court on the basis that the Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and that neither federal question jurisdiction nor

diversity jurisdiction exist. Defendant does not specifically allege subject-matter

jurisdiction, but states that “[t]he case has been removed from [sic] the following

reasons: ‘True Bill’ by respondent in support of Legislative Act, By Caveat Judicial

Notice 28 USC 1446-sec. 576 which grants Removal to Defendants” and “that it was

his right to move this cause of action to the U.S. District Court.” (Doc. # 6, pg. 2). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States....” 28 U.S.C. §

1441(a). A district court must remand a case to state court “[i]f at any time before final

judgement it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction....” 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the

right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The presumption against removal means that ‘the

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.’” MooreThomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation

omitted).

A. Diversity of Citizenship

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for

a Better Env., 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). It is also necessary that “the amount

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs....”

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

In the notice of removal, Defendant states that he is a resident of California. In

2 16cv1325

Case 3:16-cv-01325-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/16 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

the motion to remand, Plaintiff asserts that it is a resident of California. (Doc. # 3-1,

pg. 10). Further, the amount in the controversy asserted by Plaintiff in the complaint is

at most $10,000. (See Doc. #1, pg. 6). Defendant has provided no basis for a

determination that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant has failed

to establish complete diversity of citizenship. See Thompson v. McComb, 99 F.3d 352,

353 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that upon removal, defendant bears the burden of

establishing the “actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction”).

B. Federal Question

Absent diversity of citizenship, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction

“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 (1987) (internal citation

omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The well pleaded complaint rule “makes the

plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive

reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “Removability cannot be created

by defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal question....” Takeda v.

Northwestern Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d. 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal

citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s complaint relies exclusively on state law and does not assert a federal

question. Rather, Defendant asserts that he transferred his case to federal court because

“he believes that he will get a fair hearing in U.S. District court, not in Superior court,

and it is his right to transfer his case to U.S. District court.” (Doc. # 6, pg. 3). Further,

Defendant cites “Title 28, Sec. 1441(6)” in support of his request to transfer. Id.

Defendant presumably intends to rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e)(6), which states that

“[n]othing in this subsection [governing multiparty, multiplatforum jurisdiction] shall

restrict the authority of the district court to transfer or dismiss an action on the ground

of inconvenient forum.” However, inconvenient forum is not an issue in the instant

case, and Defendant has not shown that the instant cases involves a federal question. 

The Court concludes that neither the complaint nor the notice of removal

3 16cv1325

Case 3:16-cv-01325-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/16 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

adequately states a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion to remand is GRANTED.

II. Request for Attorney’s Fees 

Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

incurred as a result of Defendant’s improper removal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),

“[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual

expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”

The Court finds that, considering the circumstances of this case, including

Defendant’s pro se status, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate. See Citibank

N. A. v. Ortiz, 2008 WL 4771932, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) (declining to award

fees “in consideration of [the defendant’s] pro se status”). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand and request for attorney’s fees (Doc. #3) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

2. The action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County

of San Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned case number 37-

2016-00016951-CL-VO-CTL;

3. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED. 

4. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is DENIED

AS MOOT.

Dated: June 28, 2016

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

4 16cv1325

Case 3:16-cv-01325-JAH-JLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/16 Page 4 of 4