Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00426/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00426-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of 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

THREE ARCH CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv426-GPC(JMA)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

v.

BRENDA M LAREYBI, PARCHIER

LAREYBI & MARCEL LAMBARRI,

Defendants.

On March 2, 2017, Marcel Lambarri, proceeding pro se, filed a notice ofremoval

of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for

San Diego County. Having reviewed the notice of removal, the Court finds it does not

have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS the action to state court. 

Discussion

Any action brought in state court may be “removed by the defendant or the

defendants” to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“A

defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall

filed . . . a notice of removal . . . .”)

- 1 - [17cv426-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:17-cv-00426-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

As an initial matter, Marcel Lambarri (“Lambarri”), though he may be a tenant,

is not a named defendant in the state court action. Therefore, he cannot remove the

action to this Court. But even if Lambarri was a proper defendant, he has not

demonstrated that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the merits of any dispute

until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues

presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). 

Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional

power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its]

existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278

(1977) (citations omitted). The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. 

Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses

only that power authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport

Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). 

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

action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). “The removal statute is strictly construed against

removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d

1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28,

32 (2002)). Thus, for an action to be removed on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of

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

substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983). Alternatively,

a federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of

different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the

- 2 - [17cv426-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:17-cv-00426-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

‘well-pleaded complaintrule,’which providesthatfederal jurisdiction exists only when

a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “The burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is

any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A review of the state court complaint in this case showsthat Plaintiff Three Arch

Capital Management, LLC alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under

California state law. (Dkt. No. 1-3 at 5.) In the notice of removal, Lambarri alleges

that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to a federal question because it is related to a

pending action in this Court, Case No. 17cv0003, where the original owner of the

property at issue is challenging the foreclosure of her residence pursuant to the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3; see also Case No.

17cv0003, Dkt. No. 1.) 

Lambarri’s reliance to another related case in thisCourt to support subject matter

jurisdiction suggests that he may be relying on the court’s supplemental jurisdiction;

however, a “removal petition . . . may not base subject-matter jurisdiction on the

supplemental jurisdiction statute, even if the action which a defendantseeks to remove

is related to another action over which the federal district court already has

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Pacific Bell v. Covad Commc’ns Co., No. C 99-1491 SI,

1999 WL 390840, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 1999) (quoting Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of

Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996)). Therefore, Lambarri’s reason for

removal cannot support federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Sato v. Wachovia

Mort., FSB, No. 11cv810 EJD(PSG), 2011 WL 2784567, at *12 (N.D. Cal. July 13,

2011) (“any relationship between the unlawful detainer action and the wrongful

foreclosure case is irrelevant for purposes of removal.”); Waadhwa v. Aurora Loan

- 3 - [17cv426-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:17-cv-00426-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

Servs., LLC, No. 10cv3361 WBS DAD, 2011 WL 308416, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27,

2011) (unlawful detainer action does not raise a federal question even though it was

filed because of a related federal case concerning the loan and foreclosure). 

Lambarri’s assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is without merit and

it does not appear that jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship as the amount in

controversy in the state court complaint does not exceed $10,000. Lambarri has not

established a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and the Court must

remand the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior

Court of the State of California for San Diego County. The Court also DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and Lambarri’s emergency motion for writ as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 4, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [17cv426-GPC(JMA)]

Case 3:17-cv-00426-GPC-WVG Document 5 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4