Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02871/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02871-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

SKYLINE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2871 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

ARTHUR R. TOLENTINO; and MARIA

TOLENTINO,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) filed by

Plaintiff Skyline Vista Equities, LLC.

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Unlawful

Detainer in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1-3). The

Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to possession of real property located at 771 Paradise

Way, National City, California 91950. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff served Defendants

with written notice requiring them to vacate the property, and that Defendants have failed to

do so. The Complaint alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law.

On December 3, 2012, Defendants Arthur R. Tolentino and Maria Tolentino removed

the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Notice of Removal alleges that federal question

jurisdiction exists because “portions of California Civil Code 117; 1179(a) violate the Equal

Protection Clause of the United States and California constitutions....” and “Defendants ha[ve]

- 1 - 12cv2871 WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02871-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 4
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

been deprived of a liberty interest protected under the due process clause....” (ECF No. 1 at

2-3). The Notice of Removal also alleges that “the amount in controversy requirement is

satisfied” because the value of Defendants’ property is “no less than $160,000.00.” Id. at 2.

On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 4). 

On December 9, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 5). On January 7, 2013,

Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 8).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant

or the defendants, to the district court of the United States....” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A district

court must remand a case to state court “if at any time before the final judgment it appears that

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removal statute

is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of

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

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

proper.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because there is no

diversity in citizenship between the parties, the amount in controversy does not exceed

$75,000.00, and there is no federal question asserted within the state court action. (ECF No.

4 at 1-2). Defendants contend this Court has federal question jurisdiction because Defendants

have “raised federal questions and claims involving alleg[ed] constitutional violations.” (ECF

No. 5 at 2). Defendants contend that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and “[t]his lawsuit involves two citizens from California

and a corporation that buys and sells distressed real properties in Nevada and California....” 

Id.

I. Diversity of Citizenship

“Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship requires that no

- 2 - 12cv2871 WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02871-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 03/06/13 Page 2 of 4
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

defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better

Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a

citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or

foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(1). LLCs

are citizens of the state where they were formed and of any state where a member or owner of

the LLC is a citizen. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899

(9th Cir. 2006). 

In the Notice of Removal, Defendants state that they are residents of California, but fail

to establish the citizenship of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1). In the Motion to Remand, Plaintiff asserts

that its principal place of business is in California, which Defendants do not dispute. (ECF No.

4-1 at 2). Defendants have failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship. See

Thompson v. McComb, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996) (upon removal, defendant bears the

burden of establishing the “actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.”)

II. Federal Question

Absent diversity of citizenship, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction “when a

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

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331; Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 12 (2003) (“A federal question is

presented when the complaint invokes federal law as the basis for relief.”) (Scalia, J.,

dissenting) (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392). The well pleaded complaint rule “makes the

plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance

on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “Removability cannot be created by defendant

pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal question....” Takeda v. Northwestern Nat. Life

Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (quotation and citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint relies exclusively on state law and does not assert a federal

question. To the extent Defendants contend that they have a defense to the unlawful detainer

action grounded in federal law, “the existence of a defense based upon federal law is

insufficient to support jurisdiction.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183

- 3 - 12cv2871 WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02871-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 03/06/13 Page 3 of 4
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

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,

10-12 (1983)). 

The Court concludes that neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal adequately

state a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) filed by

Plaintiff is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego,

where it was originally filed. 

DATED: March 6, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv2871 WQH-JMA

Case 3:12-cv-02871-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 03/06/13 Page 4 of 4