Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02162/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

19-CV-2162 JLS (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

PEGGY NELSON, Trustee of the Nelson 

Living trust,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE KREBBS, SR.; 

KISHIA KREBBS; DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-2162 JLS (LL)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION

On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff Peggy Nelson filed a complaint against Defendants 

Anthony and Kishia Krebbs in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 

Defendants removed the action to this Court on November 12, 2019. On the same day, 

Defendants also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Because the 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action. 

“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); see also GFD, LLC 

v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM FFMX, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 

2012) (“The court may—indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). There are two bases for subject 

Case 3:19-cv-02162-JLS-LL Document 5 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-2162 JLS (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

matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, courts have diversity jurisdiction when the “matter in 

controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . [¶] citizens of different States.” 

Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction for “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Neither bases for subject matter jurisdiction is met in this case. Plaintiff, a California 

resident, brings a claim for unlawful detainer against Defendants, who are also California 

residents, seeking $1,875 in damages. ECF No. 1-2. In their Notice of Removal, 

Defendants contend that “federal question [jurisdiction] exists because Defendant[s’]

Answer . . . depends[s] on the determination of Defendant[s’] rights and Plaintiff’s duties 

under federal law.” Notice of Removal at 2, ECF No. 1. Defendants’ invocation of federal 

counterclaims and defenses, however, does not create federal question jurisdiction. See 

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 

(1983). Defendants have also not shown diversity jurisdiction exits, as the case is between 

California residents and the amount in controversy is far less than $75,000. Defendants 

have therefore failed to meet their burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Gaus 

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The ‘strong presumption’ against 

removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 

removal is proper.”) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 

712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

For these reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the 

State of California, County of San Diego. Defendants’ Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED 

AS MOOT, (ECF No. 4). The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02162-JLS-LL Document 5 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2