Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as Trustee for DSLA

Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-AR4,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv297-LAB (BLM)

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

CELESTE LOUDON, DAVID LOUDON,

DefendantS.

The Court ordered Defendants, who had removed this action on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction, to show cause why it should not be remanded. Defendants have filed their

response, and it fails to show cause why this action should not be remanded. To the

contrary, it clearly demonstrates the Court lacks jurisdiction.

The Court’s Order to Show Cause (Docket no. 10) pointed out that the notice of

removal relied on diversity jurisdiction; and that, because the complaint sought much less

than $75,000, the amount in controversy requirement was not met. The Order also noted

that the notice of removal had mentioned federal question jurisdiction in passing, but hadn’t

relied on it. But even if Defendants wanted to rely on federal question jurisdiction, the Order

noted, they couldn’t do so, because the well-pleaded complaint rule permits the Court to

exercise jurisdiction only where a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint.

/ / /

- 1 - 14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendants’ response essentially ignores the Order’s legal discussion. It argues that

its federal defenses or counterclaims give rise to federal question jurisdiction. This is wrong.

See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9 Cir. th

1988) (discussing well-pleaded complaint rule).

Defendants’ response also argues that diversityjurisdiction exists merely because the

parties are diverse, and omits any mention at all of the amount in controversy. Because the

complaint seeks much less than the threshold amount, it is clear the Court cannot exercise

diversity jurisdiction in this action. 

This case is therefore REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California,

County of San Diego (Hall of Justice), from which it was removed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 13 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 2