Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01044-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441rl Removal- Rent, Lease, &amp; Ejectment

---

1

17-CV-1044-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

ADAM WEILER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA NUNO TORRES; ANTONIA 

TORRES OCHOA; ANGEL NUNO 

TORRES; JESUS HERNANDEZ 

TORRES; DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-1044-AJB-WVG

ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION; AND 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, (Doc. No. 3)

On May 22, 2017, Defendant Angel Nuno Torres (“Defendant”), acting pro se, filed 

a notice of removal, (Doc. No. 1), and application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 

3). The notice of removal seeks to remove an unlawful detainer proceeding initiated in San 

Diego Superior Court by Plaintiff Adam Weiler (“Plaintiff”) in this action. (Doc. No. 1 at 

2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San 

Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES AS MOOT

Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 3.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction 

Case 3:17-cv-01044-AJB-WVG Document 5 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-1044-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

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.” Luther v. 

Countywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). There is a 

“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal always 

bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, federal jurisdiction 

must be rejected. Id.

“[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).

DISCUSSION

As set forth in the notice of removal, Defendant alleges the Court has both diversity 

and federal question jurisdiction over the present action. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 5, 9.) 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). 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 a federal 

question case 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.” California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Audette 

v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); 

see Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921). Accordingly, the 

federal question may not be aided by the notice of removal, Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 

U.S. 109, 113 (1936), nor may a case be removed on the basis of a federal defense, 

Case 3:17-cv-01044-AJB-WVG Document 5 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-1044-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

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392–93 (1987), or counterclaim, Holmes Grp., 

Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 832 (2002).

Defendant first claims that diversity jurisdiction exists. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5.) The 

complaint attached as Exhibit A to the notice of removal, however, affirmatively shows 

that the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional minimum. The complaint 

is an unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiff requests $3100.00 in past due rent, as well 

as reasonable attorney fees and forfeiture of the rental agreement. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.)

Plaintiff also seeks damages at the rate of $51.66 per day for each day from April 1, 2017, 

through entry of judgment. (Id.) At this juncture, the request for damages amounts to 

approximately $2737.98. It is therefore not more likely than not that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000.

Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction exists based on his answer 

also fails. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 9.) The face of Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only a single claim 

for unlawful detainer, which is a California state law cause of action. (Doc. No. 1 at 7–9.)

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))).

Defendant nonetheless argues that federal question jurisdiction exists based upon his 

demurrer and answer to the state court complaint, asserting the notice was defective for 

failing to comply with the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, a federal statute. (Doc. 

No. 1 ¶ 7.) Defendant’s position carries no clout. Federal question jurisdiction cannot be 

predicated upon a defendant’s response to the complaint; rather, the complaint itself must 

raise the federal question. Gully, 299 U.S. at 113 (“the controversy must be disclosed upon 

the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal”); 

Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(“the federal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense”); 

Franks v. Franks, No. 3:17-CV-893-CAB-AGS, 2017 WL 1735169, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 

Case 3:17-cv-01044-AJB-WVG Document 5 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-1044-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

4, 2017) (remanding unlawful detainer action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where 

defendant asserted that plaintiff “allegedly violated the notice provisions of the [PTFA], 

and that the PTFA preempts Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action”).1

As such, 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.” 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-KJNPS, 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.”).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action in its entirety 

to San Diego Superior Court. Because the Court remands this action pursuant to its 

“independent obligation to examine [its] own jurisdiction,” FW/PBS, Inc., 493 U.S. at 231, 

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Doc. No. 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2017

 

1 Furthermore, Defendant’s contention that the demurrer and answer invoked the PTFA is 

factually false. Defendant demurred on the grounds that the notice was defective for failing 

to comply with California state law, not the PTFA. (Doc. No. 1 at 17–18.) The answer 

similarly makes no mention of the PTFA. (Id. at 19–22.)

Case 3:17-cv-01044-AJB-WVG Document 5 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4