Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00361-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

19-cv-00361-AJB-LL

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., its assignees 

and/or successors

Plaintiff,

v.

Maribel Preciado and DOES 1-10 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-00361-AJB-LL

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR REMAND; AND

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 4, 7.)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) 

motion to remand, (Doc. No. 7), and Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis,

(Doc. No. 4). For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, DENIES

Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and REMANDS this action to 

the 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. 

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

Case 3:19-cv-00361-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-00361-AJB-LL

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

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.”). 

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). Here, there is no federal question jurisdiction 

because the unlawful detainer complaint invokes California law. (See Doc. No. 1-4 at 2.) 

The complaint filed in state court solely concerns an unlawful detainer action under 

California law and, thus, presents no federal question. 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 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 *4–5 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (holding federal 

jurisdiction does not exist when a complaint alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer 

which is a California state law cause of action). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction 

does not exist. 

Diversity jurisdiction is generally prohibited if any defendant is a citizen of the state 

where the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Diversity jurisdiction also fails to 

provide this Court with jurisdiction because at least one Defendant resides in California. 

(See Doc. No. 1-4 at 2.) Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction on 

diversity grounds. 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00361-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-00361-AJB-LL

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

This Court does not have jurisdiction and accordingly, this Court DENIES

Patterson’s IFP motion as moot.

II. CONCLUSION 

Because Defendants cannot establish this Court has jurisdiction, removal was 

improper. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for remand, DENIES Defendant’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and REMANDS this action to San Diego 

Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00361-AJB-LL Document 13 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3