Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02855/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441fr Removal- Fraud

---

1

18-CV-02855

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

MAGNUM PROPERTY 

INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARSHALL C. PFEIFFER and DOES 1-

10,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-02855

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REMAND ACTION 

TO STATE COURT 

[ECF No. 3.]

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff Magnum Property Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”)

filed an ex parte application to remand this unlawful detainer action to the Superior Court 

of the State of California, San Diego County. On January 9, 2019, pro se Defendant

Marshall Pfeiffer (“Defendant”) filed an objection. Based on the following, the Court 

concludes it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application and REMANDS the action to state court

I. Background

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an unlawful-detainer action against 

Defendant in State Court. On December 20, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal 

of the unlawful-detainer action, alleging that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1332(a), and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (outlining the duty of 

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-CV-02855

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

loan servers to respond to borrower inquiries). (ECF No. 1-1). Defendant also alleged 

federal jurisdiction over the unlawful-detainer action by virtue of the related action before 

this Court (Case No. 3:18-CV-2551-GPC-JLB). (ECF No. 1, at 4). 

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed its ex parte application to remand this case to 

state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 3-1). Plaintiff points out that 

there is no federal question raised in its complaint, and that Defendant’s anticipated 

federal defense cannot support removal of the action. (ECF No. 3, at 2). It further 

alleges a lack of diversity of citizenship and an insufficient amount in controversy. 

On January 9, 2019, Defendant filed an opposition arguing that this case presents a 

federal question because the paid amounts by Plaintiff in the underlying foreclosure sale 

provides evidence of a Fraudulent Interstate Transaction, presumably in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 77q.

1

(ECF No. 5, at 3). With respect to diversity jurisdiction, Defendant 

argues the amount in controversy as $629,000, the alleged value of the property sold at 

the trustee’s foreclosure. (ECF No. 1-2, at 24.) Defendant also asserts the parties are 

diverse and alleges Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation. Furthermore, Defendant asserts 

this action must be removed to this Court because it is directly related to a pending action 

over which this Court already has subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., Case No. 3:18-CV2551-GPC-JLB.

II. Legal Standard 

A defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action brought in a State court 

of which the district courts . . . have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Removal is only proper when a case originally filed in state court presents a federal 

question or is between citizens of different state and involves an amount in controversy 

that exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Courts “strictly construe the 

removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and the defendant always has the burden of 

 

1 Although Plaintiff did not specify the applicable federal statute, the Court notes that the most 

likely culprit is 15 U.S.C. § 77q.

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-CV-02855

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

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

1992). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to 

state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2003); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

A. Federal Question

The “well-pleaded complaint rule” governs federal question jurisdiction: federal 

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 (1987). The

“presence of a federal defense . . . does not constitute an essential element of Plaintiffs’ 

well-pleaded complaint.” Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 860 (9th Cir. 2011); see also

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot be 

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.”). Similarly, counterclaims, whether 

actually asserted in a state court action or anticipated in a complaint, cannot form the 

basis of § 1331 jurisdiction. See K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 

1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot hinge upon defenses or 

counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.”).

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

Removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be 

completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1). The amount in controversy is determined by the district court on the face of

the pleadings. Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).

In unlawful detainer actions, “California courts have noted that ‘the right to possession 

alone [is] involved,’ – not title to the property.” Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 

No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans 

v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977)). Therefore, “the amount of damages 

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

in controversy.” Id. As relevant here, Section 1332(c)(1) provides that a corporation 

“shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been 

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-CV-02855

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

incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

III. Discussion

A. Federal Question

There is no grounds for federal question jurisdiction. To wit, Plaintiff’s complaint 

states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. (ECF No. 5, at 10). 

Unlawful detainer actions do not present a federal question. All Mission Indian Hous. 

Auth. v. Magante, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Thus, Plaintiff does not 

assert a right to relief under that “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 28, 103 S. Ct. 2841.

Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege any facts supplying federal question jurisdiction 

and could not have brought this unlawful detainer action before this Court. Caterpillar, 

482 U.S. at 392 (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal 

court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”).

Although Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts that Plaintiff is liable for 

committing a Fraudulent Interstate Transaction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77q, that 

anticipated defense, or counterclaim, cannot keep Defendant in federal court. Even if his 

Section 77q claim is supported, it cannot confer federal question jurisdiction over the 

instant action per the well-pleaded complaint rule. See K2 Am. Corp. at 1029.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

Nor is diversity jurisdiction applicable. First, the amount in controversy here does 

not exceed $75,000. Where, as here, Plaintiff seeks cumulative damages based on the 

reasonable daily value of possession, courts calculate the amount in controversy based on 

cumulative possession thus far. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 WL 

204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011); accord U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Fine, No. 

216CV06643CASKSX, 2016 WL 6405840, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016). Plaintiff 

seeks incurred costs and holdover damages at the daily fair market value, calculated at 

$50 per day from the expiration of the Notice to Quit on November 27, 2018. (ECF. No. 

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-CV-02855

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

5 at 12). In the approximately 71 days between November 27, 2018 and now, the 

cumulative amount in controversy is roughly $3,550. 

Defendant’s assertion that the amount in controversy is $629,000 is based on the 

value of the deed of the property at issue, and therefore premised on an incorrect 

understanding of the law. Indeed it is “the amount of damages sought in the complaint, 

not the value of the subject real property [that] determine the amount in controversy.” 

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2016 WL 6405840, at *2.

In addition, diversity of citizenship is not satisfied. Plaintiff’ indicates that its

primary place of business and residence is in California2and Defendant is a citizen of 

California. Accordingly, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction

Although this Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims alleged in the related 

matter, the existence of that other action does not support supplemental jurisdiction over 

this unlawful detainer action. A related case pending in federal court is not sufficient 

grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Fabricius v. Freeman, 466 F.2d 689, 693 

(7th Cir.1972); see Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF SSX, 2010 

WL 4916578, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (jurisdiction in a related case did not 

support court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction of unlawful detainer action).

IV. Conclusion and Order 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of

demonstrating that Plaintiff’s action belongs in federal court. The Court concludes that it 

lacks federal jurisdiction over this case and accordingly GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte 

application and REMANDS the matter to the San Diego County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

2 Plaintiff asserts its primary place of business is California. Defendant has not shown otherwise. 

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-CV-02855

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

Dated: February 6, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02855-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6