Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as Trustee for DSLA

Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-AR4,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv297-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

FILE DOCUMENTS

ELECTRONICALLY; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

JURISDICTION AND REMAND

vs.

CELESTE LOUDON, DAVID LOUDON,

Defendants.

Defendants, who are proceeding pro se, have applied for leave to file documents

electronically in the Court’s CM/ECF system. Although they agree to abide by the District’s

CM/ECF requirements, it isn’t clear they are able to do so consistently. In addition, it’s not

clear at this point that this case will require the filing of very many documents and therefore

it appears allowing Defendants to file electronically would not increase efficiency at all. The

application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 10 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 3
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 removed this unlawful detainer action, citingdiversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff

1

Deutsche Bank moved for remand on inapposite grounds, which was denied. (Docket no.

4.) Although there appear to have been substantial procedural defects in the removal,

Deutsche Bank didn’t timely object to any of them, and they are therefore waived. 

The Court, however, must examine notices of removal and remand actions, sua

sponte if necessary, if at any time before final judgment it appears the Court lacks

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Sparta Surgical, 159 F.3d at 1211; see also Chapman v.

Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (federal courts must

sua sponte examine jurisdictional issues). 

The notice of removal didn’t attach the complaint or state court record, but Deutsche

Bank’s motion for remand did attach it. (Docket no. 3-1.) The complaint’s caption states that

the amount demanded is less than $10,000. The complaint alleges that the real property at

issue was sold at auction, and a deed issued in late September, 2011. (Id., ¶ 7.) Although

Defendants were removed from the property and locked out, they allegedly re-entered in

May, 2013 and began squatting there. (Id., ¶¶ 8–9.) The complaint seeks $88.00 per day,

plus an order requiring Defendants to leave. This is far less than the $75,000 threshold for

exercise of diversity jurisdiction.

The notice of removal sets the amount in controversy at $544,472.25, based

apparently on the principal amount of the mortgage they defaulted on. (Notice of Removal

at 2:–20–26.) But in unlawful detainer actions, the amount in controversy is determined by

the value of damages and other relief sought in the complaint, not the value of the property

allegedly being detained. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Jacob, 2013 WL 6328840, at *2

/ /

The notice of removal, in passing, mentions federal question jurisdiction (see Notice 1

of Removal (Docket no. 1) at 2:5–8), but no federal question appears on the face of the

complaint. Federal question jurisdiction is determined on the face of the complaint. See

Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir.

1998) (federal question jurisdiction is determined by looking at the face of the complaint).

This passing mention may have been inadvertent, because the notice of removal

prominently and explicitly relies on diversity jurisdiction, and plead facts in support of such

jurisdiction. (See id. at 2:17–26.)

14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 10 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 3
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

(C.D.Cal., Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (Cal. App. 2

Dist. 1977)). 

It may be that Defendants are confusing this unlawful detainer action with a quiet title

action, in which a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a foreclosure sale or otherwise obtain good title

to property. Compare Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1045 n.2

(9 Cir. 2011). But this is not a quiet title action; Deutsche Bank is merely seeking th

possession of the property and damages for its unlawful occupation, not title to it (which the

complaint alleges Deutsche Bank already has.) It may also be that Defendants would like

to bring a counterclaim to obtain title, or to set aside the foreclosure sale. But for purposes

of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is the value of relief the complaint seeks,

without regard to any counterclaims. See Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th

Cir. 1977).

The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v.

Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants are therefore

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded. They may do so

by filing a memorandum of points and authorities, not longer than five pages, showing why

federal jurisdiction exists, no later than the close of business on March 20, 2014. If they do

not show cause within the time permitted, this action will be remanded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 10 Filed 03/13/14 Page 3 of 3