Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01000/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18cv1000-BTM-AGS

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,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE MONTEFORTE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1000-BTM-AGS

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On May 18, 2018, Defendant Lawrence Monteforte removed this action 

from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1.)

Defendant has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF 

No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte REMANDS this action to the San Diego 

Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Defendant’s affidavit in support of his IFP motion, the Court 

finds that Defendant has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s IFP motion is GRANTED. 

37-02017-00047169-CL-UD-CTL

Case 3:18-cv-01000-BTM-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1000-BTM-AGS

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

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “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 for the district court and division embracing the place 

where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the removing defendant bears 

the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v. 

Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally 

or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded 

complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that 

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. Of State of Calif. V. Constr. Laborers 

Vacation Tr. for S. Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Whether a case “arises 

under” federal law thus turns on the nature of the claims asserted in plaintiff’s 

complaint. See id. at 10 (“For better or worse . . . a defendant may not remove a 

case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case 

‘arises under’ federal law”). “A federal defense, however, is ‘inadequate to confer 

federal jurisdiction.’” Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)). 

It is unclear on what grounds Defendant has removed this action. He 

appears to reference the Alien Tort Claim Act, but his arguments are unintelligible. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting a single cause of action for 

unlawful detainer under California state law. The complaint, therefore, does not 

state a federal claim, nor does the asserted cause of action rest on federal law. 

Defendant has also not stated any facts to support diversity jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court. 

Case 3:18-cv-01000-BTM-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1000-BTM-AGS

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for IFP. 

(ECF No. 2.) However, as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court 

sua sponte REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01000-BTM-AGS Document 3 Filed 05/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3