Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00771/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441ac Removal- Account Receivable

---

1 

17cv0771 JAH-RBB 

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 

MARK PEELING, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MICHAEL MCCUTHEON AKA 

MICHAEL MCCUTCHEON, et. al., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17cv0771 JAH-RBB 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION 

 On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff Mark Peeling filed a complaint in the Superior Court 

of California, County of San Diego for unlawful detainer against Michael McCutheon aka 

Michael McCutcheon, Jennifer Romero, and Does 1 to 10 inclusive. The complaint only 

alleges a state law claim and is a limited civil case with a demand under $10,000. 

Defendant McCutheon aka McCutcheon, appearing pro se, filed a notice of removal on 

April 17, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over 

the complaint and, therefore, sua sponte remands the matter to state court for all further 

proceedings. 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:17-cv-00771-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cv0771 JAH-RBB 

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

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Kokkoken v. Gardian Life Ins. Co., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it 

confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 

523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Thus, at any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua 

sponte remand a case to state court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 

case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Brockman v. Merabank, 40 F.3d 1013, 1016 - 17 (9th Cir. 

1994). 

 Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 

can be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. See Caterpillar, 

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a party invoking the federal removal 

statutes must establish jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence of: (1) a statutory basis; 

(2) a federal question; or (3) diversity of the parties. See Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford 

Acc. And Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981). District courts must construe 

the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as to removability 

in favor of remanding the case to state court. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 

1988). The burden is on the removing party to demonstrate federal subject matter 

jurisdiction over the case. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 

 II. Analysis 

 Upon review of the notice of removal and the complaint, this Court finds it 

appropriate to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the notice of removal fails 

to establish a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The complaint asserts a single cause 

of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant maintains he removed the action because the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”) preempts state law as to bona fide 

residential tenants of foreclosed landlords. Preemption gives rise to federal question 

jurisdiction only when an area of state law has been completely preempted by federal law. 

Case 3:17-cv-00771-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cv0771 JAH-RBB 

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

See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Defendant fails to demonstrate the PTFA completely 

preempts state law. In fact, the express language of the statute indicates Congress did not 

intend the PTFA to be the exclusive remedy. 12 U.S.C. § 5220 Note § (a) (Stating that the 

Act does not affect the requirements of any state or local law providing for longer time 

periods or additional protections for tenants); P.L. No. 111-22 § 702(a)(2)(A), see also 

PNC Bank, National Association v. Branch, 2011 WL 281806 (D.Arizona 2011). To the 

extent Defendant asserts the PTFA as a defense, a federal defense is insufficient to establish 

federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Plaintiff’s complaint for 

unlawful detainer fails to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

the Court deems it appropriate to sua sponte remand the matter to state court. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the instant complaint is sua 

sponte REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. 

DATED: April 20, 2017 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00771-JAH-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3