Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00599/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345fc Foreclosure

---

1

18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

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

11767 INVIERNO DR. TRUST 

DATED 01/19/2018, U.S. 

FINANCIAL L.P., AS TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD SYNNOTT; APRIL 

SYNNOTT; and DOES 1-10,

INCLUSIVE

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND

ECF NO. 4

Plaintiff Invierno Dr. Trust Dated 01/19/2018, U.S. Financial L.P., has filed a 

motion to remand this case back to state court. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants 

Richard Synott and April Synott in the Superior Court of the State of California, 

County of San Diego, Central Division. (ECF No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff alleged a 

cause of action of unlawful detainer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 

37-02018-00010136-CL-UD-CTL

Case 3:18-cv-00599-BTM-NLS Document 6 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

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

§ 1161. Id.

On March 22, 2018, Defendants removed the action to this court based on 

federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice 

which expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201.” (ECF No. 1). 

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion to remand the case back to state 

court, arguing lack of both diversity and federal question jurisdiction (ECF No. 4).

Defendants failed to file any response to Plaintiff’s motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction extends 

over “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that 

federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief 

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” 

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 

1, 27-28 (1983). This rule makes a plaintiff the “master of his complaint” and allows 

him to “avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.” Balcorta v. 

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000).

Upon review of the complaint, it is clear that no federal question jurisdiction 

exists. The unlawful detainer action filed against Defendants arises under state 

law and does not require resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See 

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lasoff, 2010 WL 669239 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010) 

(holding that unlawful detainer action did not raise a federal question); HSBC Bank 

USA, NA v. Valencia, 2010 WL 546721 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2010) (remanding 

unlawful detainer action); Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Cencil, 2010 WL 

2179778 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2010) (granting motion to remand unlawful detainer 

action).

Case 3:18-cv-00599-BTM-NLS Document 6 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand 

this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 1 Further, “an 

order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual 

expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff just costs and actual expenses incurred as 

a result of Defendants’ unsubstantiated removal. Barring a showing of good cause, 

Defendants may not file for removal of this action again. If Defendants file for 

removal without good cause, they may be sanctioned for contempt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2018

 

1 Defendants do not argue that diversity jurisdiction exists, and there is no evidence that there is diversity of 

citizenship.

Case 3:18-cv-00599-BTM-NLS Document 6 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3