Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00993/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00993-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a)rp Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1 

17cv993-AJB- JLB 

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 

MISSION CAPITAL PROPERTIES, 

INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SEAN DOMINGUEZ, PAIGE 

DOMINGUEZ, AND DOES 1-10, 

Inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17cv993-AJB- JLB 

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION 

(Doc. No. 1) 

 On May 15, 2017, Defendants Sean and Paige Dominguez (collectively referred to 

as “Defendants”) removed an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego Superior Court 

to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) The removal was based on federal question jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (Id. ¶ 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

 After a review of Plaintiff Mission Capital Properties, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint 

and Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court notes that the only cause of action asserted 

in the present matter is for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Accordingly, 

Case 3:17-cv-00993-AJB-JLB Document 4 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cv993-AJB- JLB 

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

the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction 

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from state 

court to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the 

matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.” 

Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Moreover, there is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction and the party 

seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is necessary if it appears from the 

face of the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed 

action. See id. (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance.”) (citation omitted). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is bringing a single cause of action against Defendants 

for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Thus, because this is a purely state law 

cause of action, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and must remand the 

matter. See Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411, 

at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful 

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the 

complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”); see also 

Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. Lam, No. SACV 11-32-JST (RNBx), 2011 

WL 781243, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011). 

In addition, the face of the Complaint clearly shows that this Court does not possess 

diversity jurisdiction over the matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction 

there must be “complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy 

requirement of $75,000 must be met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint clearly 

states that Plaintiff seeks $70.00 per day in damages, beginning on March 7, 2017, for each 

day Defendants remain in possession of the subject premises. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 8.) As of 

Case 3:17-cv-00993-AJB-JLB Document 4 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cv993-AJB- JLB 

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

the date of this Order that amounts to $4900.00, which is far less than the $75,000.00 

needed for diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the 

matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 

696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a state-court complaint affirmatively alleges that the 

amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the ‘party seeking removal 

must prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.’”) (citation omitted.) 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 16, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00993-AJB-JLB Document 4 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3