Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02362/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG

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

CARMEL TERRACE, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES DOWNEY; and DOES 1 

to 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis. (ECF No. 2). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Carmel Terrace, L.P. initiated this action by filing a 

Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case 

number 37-2019-00036259-CL-UD-CTL, against Defendant James Downey. (ECF No. 1-

2 at 7).

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1). The 

same day, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 

2). 

Case 3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG

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

The court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 

jurisdiction exists. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 

967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or 

not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). Because 

subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties, a district court must remand 

a removed case if it lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Kelton Arms Condominium Owners 

Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003); accord Sparta 

Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998); 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

The federal removal statute provides, in relevant part:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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 and division embracing 

the place where such action is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” id., 

and removal jurisdiction “‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 

in the first instance’” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 

1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 

curiam)).

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case 

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal 

Case 3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG

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

law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(modification in original) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 

463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 

pleaded complaint.” Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1091; Ultramar Am. Ltd. v. Dwelle, 

900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Ordinarily, the existence of federal question 

jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint.”). “In determining the existence 

of removal jurisdiction, based upon a federal question, the court must look to the complaint 

as of the time the removal petition was filed. Jurisdiction is based on the complaint as 

originally filed” Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has held that “a case may not 

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, ... even if the defense is 

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) 

(citing Franchise Tax Bd. Of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern 

Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983)). The federal element must be “direct and essential” to the 

claim, as opposed to “incidental” or “attenuated.” Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 424 (9th 

Cir. 1994).

Defendant contends that there is “original jurisdiction over the Unlawful Detainer 

Action because it is a federally related action under the Fair Debt Collections Practices 

Act.” (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). The underlying state action is based upon state law. The only 

claim Plaintiff asserts is for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff does not state any federal causes 

of action or prayers for relief. The federal element is not “direct and essential” to the claim 

and is “incidental” or “attenuated.” See Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1994). 

The Court concludes that the underlying action does not include a federal issue and that 

removal is not permitted. 

Case 3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court 

for the State of California, County of San Diego, where it was originally filed under case

number 37-2019-00036259-CL-UD-CTL. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

(ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

Dated: December 11, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02362-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 12/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4