Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01528/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01528-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Notice of Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

17-cv-1528-BTM-NLS

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.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HALL, et. al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-1528-BTM-NLS

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On July 27, 2017, James Hall and Mary Hall (“Defendants”), defendants in 

an unlawful detainer action originally filed in the Superior Court of California, 

County of San Diego, filed a Notice of Removal removing the action to this Court. 

(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The Court finds that Defendants’ Notice of 

Removal fails to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the 

removed action, and accordingly REMANDS the action to state court. 

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “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 for the district court and division embracing the place 

where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the removing defendant bears 

37-02017-00015952-CL-UD-CTL

Case 3:17-cv-01528-BTM-NLS Document 5 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-1528-BTM-NLS

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 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v. 

Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally 

or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded 

complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that 

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. Of State of Calif. V. Constr. Laborers 

Vacation Tr. for S. Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Whether a case “arises 

under” federal law thus turns on the nature of the claims asserted in plaintiff’s 

complaint. See id. at 10 (“For better or worse . . . a defendant may not remove a 

case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case 

‘arises under’ federal law.”). “A federal defense, however, is ‘inadequate to 

confer federal jurisdiction.’” Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)). 

Here, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting only a cause of action for unlawful 

detainer under California state law. The complaint therefore does not state a 

federal claim, nor does the asserted cause of action rest on federal law. 

Defendants assert that a federal question exists because their demurrer depends 

on the determination of their rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law. 

However, the law is clear that federal defenses do not confer federal question 

jurisdiction. Dennis, 724 F.3d at 1253. 

The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper, and the Court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. 

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded 

to state court.”). Defendants have failed to establish this Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to the 

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 

Case 3:17-cv-01528-BTM-NLS Document 5 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-1528-BTM-NLS

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

Defendants also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Because the Court remands this action to state court, Defendants’ motion is 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01528-BTM-NLS Document 5 Filed 08/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3