Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00145/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for 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

- 1 - 10cv145 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TENNYE DENTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv145 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

BERHANU JACOB,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Plaintiff initiated this action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Diego on October 9, 2009. (Doc. # 1). The action is a landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid

rent. Id. at 9. On January 19, 2010, Defendant filed a notice of removal removing the action

to this Court. Id. Defendant also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

(Doc. # 2).

Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. art.

III, § 2. Federal courts “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Moreover, “[f]ederal

courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues.” Bernhardt v. County of Los

Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted); see also Scholastic Entm’t,

Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (while a party is entitled to

notice and opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissal of a claim on the

Case 3:10-cv-00145-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 2
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 1

 Defendant failed to file a copy of the complaint with the Notice of Removal. However, a

detailed Civil Case Cover Sheet from the state court action describing the claim is attached.

- 2 - 10cv145 WQH (CAB)

merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). Therefore, the

removal statute provides: “If 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). As the

party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, Defendant bears the burden of

establishing the “actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” See Thompson v. McComb,

99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Notice of Removal states that the grounds for removal are:

[T]he amount in controversy as to the claims of both parties exceeds

$500,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, in that the defendant’s Caveat

Judicial Notice pursuant to the Sovereign Clearfield Doctrine:

Notice of Condemnation (Eminent Domain) of said property located at the

Republic of California 4075-4077 Wabash Avenue, San Diego, CA 92104

outside the Territory of the Sovereign United States is not for public use unless

alleged parties claiming ownership can show proof of claim from the original

Deed of Trust and signed Affidavit and Government Tort, Tort

Waiver/Conditional Acceptance signed under the Penalty of Perjury and their

full Liability before a Notary Public, per- Federal Judge Boyko Decision, Etc.

Defendant does not assert any basis for federal jurisdiction, nor is any basis for federal

jurisdiction apparent from the state court cover sheets.1

 Both parties are listed at California

addresses, the Civil Cover Sheet filed in this Court states that both parties are citizens of this

state, and there are no federal law claims.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the state court. The

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: January 25, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00145-WQH-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2