Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00694/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00694-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441tl Removal- Torts to Land

---

1

19-cv-0694-AJB-MDD

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

13th and Market Properties, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Tony Magee; DOES 1–25,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-0694-AJB-MDD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND AND

REMANDING THE CASE BACK 

TO SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR 

COURT (Doc. No. 3)

Defendant Tony Magee removed his unlawful detainer case to federal court. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the unlawful detainer action. The Court 

GRANTS that motion and REMANDS this action back to the San Diego Superior Court.

I. DISCUSSION

Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 

federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 

establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 

must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-00694-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-0694-AJB-MDD

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

1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A defense based on federal law is 

not sufficient to remove an action to federal court. Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (“[N]either an affirmative defense based on federal law . . . nor one based on 

federal preemption . . . renders an action brought in state court removable.”).

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action back to state court. Although the Court 

has not received an opposition yet, “a district court’s duty to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. 

Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the 

issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, 

the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent obligation to 

address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., 

L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 

2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 

Here, Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts this Court has jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The federal statutes cited reference federal question 

jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and an admiralty statute, respectively. First, there is no 

federal question because the unlawful detainer complaint invokes California law. (See Doc. 

No. 1 at 2–3.) Generally, “[f]ederal jurisdiction typically exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Valles v. 

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). The complaint filed in state court 

solely concerns unlawful detainer under California law and, thus, presents no federal 

question. See Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485-MCE-KJN-PS, 

2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its Complaint in 

Superior Court asserting a single claim for unlawful detainer premised solely on California 

law. Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal question or 

necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction 

appears on the face of the Complaint.”); see also Sage Home Mortg., LLC v. Roohan, No.: 

Case 3:19-cv-00694-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-0694-AJB-MDD

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

17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118119, at * (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) 

(same). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not exist. 

II. CONCLUSION 

Because Defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction, removal was improper. The 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand, (Doc. No. 3), and REMANDS the case back

to the San Diego Superior Court. The Court Clerk is ordered to then close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00694-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 05/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3