Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03043/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03043-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

1

16cv3043-JLS (BGS)

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

PRIME MESA, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD YAMAMOTO; RUBY 

GRACE MERCADO; and DOES 1 to 10 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv3043-JLS (BGS)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER 

JURISDICTION

(ECF No. 1)

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Notice of Removal (“Removal Notice”). 

(ECF No. 1.) Defendants assert that jurisdiction is proper because the action “originally 

could have been filed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or (b)” because 

Defendants’ “Answer to the complaint for unlawful detainer was based on a defective 

Notice to Pay or Quit” which “depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s [sic] rights 

and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Removal Notice 1–2.) 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, may only entertain suits 

that are properly within the scope of federal jurisdiction. Demarest v. United States, 718 

F.2d 964, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). Although a party may raise a defense of lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a federal court also has an independent duty 

Case 3:16-cv-03043-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 3
2

16cv3043-JLS (BGS)

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

to evaluate subject-matter jurisdiction and may do so at any time, see id. at 12(h)(3). The 

two most common bases of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are (1) diversity of 

citizenship pursuant to Section 1332, and (2) federal question jurisdiction under Section 

1331. Section 1441 authorizes removal under either basis.

Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requires that the parties are citizens of different 

States and that the amount “in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In the present case, Defendants’ assertion that the action originally 

could have been filed in federal court pursuant to Section 1332 is unsupported by any 

allegations regarding the citizenship of the parties. Furthermore, the underlying Superior 

Court summons explicitly states that the action is a limited civil case where Plaintiff’s 

demand “does not exceed $10,000.” (Removal Notice 6.) Accordingly, this case is not 

properly before the court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction; the Court cannot assess 

the citizenship of the parties, and, even if it could, Plaintiff seeks well less than $75,000.

Federal question jurisdiction provides federal courts with “jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” However, 

that a potential defense may implicate federal law is not enough to satisfy federal question 

jurisdiction; the basis for asserting such jurisdiction must appear on the face of a plaintiff’s 

complaint. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (“It is not 

enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts 

that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.

Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question 

under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff’s 

original cause of action, arises under the Constitution.”).

In the present case, Plaintiff’s complaint is one for unlawful detainer, a cause of 

action solely arising under California law. (See Removal Notice 7 (checked box for “this 

action is solely for nonpayment of rent (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2))”).) Accordingly, the 

Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the present action.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-03043-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 3
3

16cv3043-JLS (BGS)

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

“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). Given the foregoing, 

and because the Court has no basis to exercise jurisdiction over this matter, the instant case 

is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of San Diego for all further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-03043-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3