Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02881/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02881-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

1

3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD

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

COMANA COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERY RAINEY; MARIA RAINEY; 

and DOES 1 through X, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Comana Company, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for 

Order to Remand. (Docket No. 3.) For the reasons expressed below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application to remand.

BACKGROUND

In early October 2016, Plaintiff, a property manager, served Defendants with a 

three day notice to pay rent or quit, based on Defendants’ failure to pay rent for the 

property at 1320 San Miguel Avenue, Spring Valley, CA 91977 (“Subject Property”). 

Defendants did not pay or vacate the property and, subsequently, Plaintiff filed and 

served an unlawful detainer action on October 14, 2016. The complaint had one claim 

for relief—unlawful detainer.

Case 3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD

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

On November 23, 2016, five days before trial was set to begin, Defendants 

removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Docket No. 

1.) Defendants contend that “Plaintiff has actually filed a Federal Question action in 

State Court” because “to evict a bona fide residential tenant of a foreclosed Landlord, 

Plaintiff was required to state a cause of action under the [Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act (‘PTFA’)],” 15 U.S.C. § 5220, et seq. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants claim 

that Plaintiff engaged in “artful pleading” and “sought to avoid [the] protections [of the 

PTFA] by filing this action as” one for unlawful detainer. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed the ex parte application to remand the case to state court on 

December 5, 2016. (Docket No. 3.) Defendants have not filed an opposition. 

DISCUSSION

The Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the 

case. If “at any time” the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, “the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “A defendant may remove a case only if the claim 

could have been brought in federal court.” Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson. 478 U.S. 

804, 808 (1986) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). “Absent diversity of citizenship, federalquestion jurisdiction is required.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

The Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Under federal 

question jurisdiction, “[a] defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the 

plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax 

Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). 

“A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.” 

Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808 (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 

149, 152-53 (1908)). Here, the only claim for relief is one for unlawful detainer, which 

arises under state law. (Docket No. 1-2.) No federal claim is presented on the face of the 

complaint. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203, 2010 WL 4916578, at 

*2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (finding no federal question jurisdiction in case with single 

claim for unlawful detainer). Defendants claim that the PTFA is the proper basis for this 

Case 3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD

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

action, but the PTFA is inapplicable here because there has been no foreclosure on the 

Subject Property. (Docket No. 3-1 at 4-5.) Therefore, Defendants have not established 

that this Court has jurisdiction based on a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1 

Because the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s Ex 

Parte Application to Remand is GRANTED. (Docket No. 3.) Defendants’ motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is DENIED AS MOOT. (Docket No. 2.) The 

case is REMANDED to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central

Division, Case Number 37-2016-00035971-CL-UD-CTL. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016

 

1

In addition, although not the basis for Defendants’ removal, this Court lacks diversity 

jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is less than $75,000, precluding jurisdiction even 

if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint indicates that the 

amount demanded is less than $5,000.

Case 3:16-cv-02881-BEN-MDD Document 4 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 3