Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01301/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for 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

- 1 - 08cv1301

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITIBANK N. A., as Trustee,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1301-LAB (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REMAND

[Dkt No. 4]

vs.

JOSE E. ORTIZ, and Does 1 though 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion To Remand ("Motion") for lack of

federal jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action and for procedural defects in the

removal procedure. The deadline for pro se defendant Jose E. Ortiz ("Ortiz") to oppose the

Motion has passed, with no responsive filing. "If an opposing party fails to file papers in the

manner required by Civil Local rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the

granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c.

Plaintiff Citibank N.A, ("Citibank"), proceeding as Deed of Trust Trustee with respect

to a parcel of real property located in National City, it acquired following a foreclosure sale

in June 2008, filed an unlawful detainer action in San Diego County Superior Court on

July 9, 2008. The Superior Court action Citibank filed seeks Ortiz's post-foreclosure eviction

from the premises, possession of the premises, and recovery of the reasonable rental value

of the premises, represented to be $22.00 per day, from June 17, 2008 forward until Ortiz

Case 3:08-cv-01301-LAB-RBB Document 8 Filed 10/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 08cv1301

vacates the premises. Citibank moves to remand this action for improper removal to federal

court and also seeks its costs of suit incurred to dispose of the federal case. 

In his Petition For Removal, Ortiz asserts diversity jurisdiction purportedly exists over

the claims Citibank presents in its unlawful detainer action. However, his conclusory

representation that he is a citizen of California and Citibank, which clearly has a presence

in California commercial transactions, is a "National Association" operating "internationally

in 23 countries outside the United States," even if he is correct Citibank's principal place of

business "on information and belief" is San Antonio, Texas, is insufficient to establish

diversity jurisdiction. In further support of the federal jurisdiction he invoked, he cites several

federal statutes Citibank allegedly violated through its purported his fraud, even though he

expressly acknowledges federal question jurisdiction "does not appear on the face of

Plaintiff's complaint." Removal Pet. ¶ 3. Finally, he vaguely asserts Citibank and others

violated due process and applied California statutes in an allegedly unconstitutional manner

associated with the foreclosure and unlawful detainer actions. 

As argued by Citibank, federal jurisdiction must appear from the face of a Complaint

showing federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily

depends on a resolution of a question of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). No such grounds appear from the face

of the Citibank Complaint. Neither allegations or affirmative defenses in an Answer nor in

the petition for removal can create federal jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113

(1936). Similarly, removability cannot be created by a defendant pleading a federal question

in a counter-claim. Takeda v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir.

1985). In addition, federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title or interests in real

property absent an interest in the property claimed by the United States, a circumstance not

present here. See 28 U.S.C. § 24009a; Leisnol, Inc. v. United States, 170 F.3d 1188, 1192

(9th Cir. 1999). Finally, Citibank correctly notes the "summary character of [an unlawful

detainer action] would be defeated if, by cross-complaint or counter-claim, issues irrelevant

Case 3:08-cv-01301-LAB-RBB Document 8 Filed 10/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 08cv1301

to the right of immediate possession could be introduced." Glendale Fed. Bank v. Hadden,

73 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1153 (1999) (citation omitted).

Citibank is also correct that remand is appropriate either for lack of federal subject

matter jurisdiction or for "any defect in the removal procedure." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see

Buckner v. FDIC, 981 F.2d 816, 820 (5th Cir. 1993). The procedures for proper removal of

an action from state to federal court appear at 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The propriety of removal

is determined solely on the basis of pleadings filed in state court, as the focus is on "the

complaint at the time the removal was filed." Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d

1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979). The removal statute is strictly construed, and the burden to

demonstrate the existence of federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking the removal statute.

Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). Ortiz's removal

petition may be fairly construed as an expansive responsive pleading raising counterclaims

and affirmative defenses, rather than a "short and plain statement of the grounds for

removal" discernable from the Citibank Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

For all the foregoing reasons, the removal is defective substantively and procedurally,

and the Motion is GRANTED. However, while Citibank understandably urges the Court to

construe the attempted removal as a tactic to delay and otherwise impede its right to recover

possession of its real property, in consideration of Ortiz's pro se status, the Court declines

to award attorneys' fees and costs incurred to seek this remand, and DENIES any award of

associated fees and costs. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the matter is remanded to state court,

terminating this federal action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01301-LAB-RBB Document 8 Filed 10/28/08 Page 3 of 3