Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01696/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01696-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-

WL1,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORFIRIO GARCIA; DOES 1 to 20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:13-cv-1696-GPC-NLS

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING CASE TO STATE

COURT

INTRODUCTION

On March 1, 2012, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-WL1 (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint in the

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for unlawful detainer against

defendant Porfirio Garcia (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that 1

Defendant unlawfully continues in possession of a property to which Plaintiff claims

rights superior to those of Defendant. On July 22, 2013, Defendant removed the matter

to this Court, asserting this Court has jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal

question.

After reviewing the pleadings filed in this case, and for the reasons set forth

 San Diego Superior Court case number 37-2012-37581-CL-UD-NC. 1

11cv2098

Case 3:13-cv-01696-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 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

below, this Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint and,

therefore, SUA SPONTE REMANDS the matter to state court for all further

proceedings.

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins.

Co. v. New York, 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, a federal court 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, 93-94 (1998). Thus, at anytime

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, 1015-16 (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. 

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 Mir v.

Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 345 (9th Cir. 1980). District courts must construe the removal

statutesstrictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty asto 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). To remove an action based on the existence of a federal question, the

complaint must establish either that federal law creates a cause of action alleged in the

complaint or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of

substantial questions of federal law. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers

Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 461 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). A plaintiff is the master of its

2 11cv2098

Case 3:13-cv-01696-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 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

complaint, and federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

presented on the face of a properly pled complaint. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. 

As such, removal cannot be based on a counterclaim. Takeda v. N.W. Nat’l Life Ins.

Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985).

2. Analysis

Upon review of Defendant’s Notice ofRemoval and the attachedComplaint, this

Court finds it appropriate to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the

Notice of Removal and attached Complaint fail to establish a proper basis for this

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction

existsfor three reasons. First, Defendant assertsthat portions of California Civil Code

Sections 1166 and 1179 (the unlawful detainer statutes) violate the Equal Protection

Clause ofthe United StatesConstitution. Second, Defendant asserts “this case involves

conduct pertaining to the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA) pursuant to 15 USC 1692

etseq. further constituting federal questions ripe for review.” Third, Defendant asserts

he “is a citizen of California and further allege[s] that he has been deprived of a liberty

interest protected under the due process clause.”

In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Plaintiff prays for a judgment of unlawful detainer and for immediate possession of the

property. Notwithstanding Defendant’s vague assertion that this Complaint gives rise

to a question under the U.S. Constitution and under the FDCPA, the Court finds no

federal question appears on the face of the Complaint. The Court further finds that

nothing in the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends

on the resolution ofsubstantial questions of federal law, asthe unlawful detainer claim

alleged rests exclusively on California state law. Plaintiff’s constitutional and FDCPA

claims may very well constitute defenses and/or counterclaims. Defenses and

counterclaims that implicate a federal question, however, are not sufficient to confer

subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that rests squarely on state law. 

Accordingly, the Court finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case

3 11cv2098

Case 3:13-cv-01696-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 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

and therefore finds it appropriate to sua sponte remand the matter to state court./

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Based on a careful review of Defendant’s Notice ofRemoval, the Complaint, and

the applicable law, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

this case is SUA SPONTE REMANDED to state court.

DATED: July 30, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 11cv2098

Case 3:13-cv-01696-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 07/30/13 Page 4 of 4