Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02123/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

FILED 
 .. 

SEP 1 7 2013 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL CASE NO. 13cv2123-WQH­ ASSOCIATION NOT IN ITS KSC 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT 

SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR SRMOF ORDER 

REO 2011-1, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOSSEIN M. SADEGHI GOLNAR 

SADEGHI and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Notice of Removal and the Court's 

consideration of its subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No.1). 

I. Background 

On July 2, 2013, Defendant Hossein M. Sadeghi ("Defendant"), proceeding pro 

- 1 13cv2123-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:13-cv-02123-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/17/13 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 

untimely. (Case No. 13cv1544, ECF No.3). On July 31,2013, Defendant filed an 

opposition to the motion to remand. (Case No. 13cv 1544, ECF No.7). On August 26, 

2013, the Court granted the motion to remand, and remanded this action to state court 

on the basis of, inter alia, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the failure to timely 

remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). (Case No. 13cv1544, ECF No. 11). 

On September 10, 2013, Defendant filed a second Notice of Removal, again 

attempting to remove San Diego County Superior Court Case Number 37-2013­

00033878-CL-UD-CTL to this Court. (ECF No.1). Defendant again contends that 

subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 

1443(1). Id. at 2-3. 

II. Discussion 

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 suit filed in state 

court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original 

jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be 

remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction is on 

the party seeking removal. See Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 

1265 (9th Cir. 1999). "The removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction and any doubt must be resolved in favor of remand." Hofler v. Aetna U.S. 

Healthcare of Cai., Inc., 296 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). A 

second removal is permissible when made on new grounds arising from subsequent 

pleadings or events. See Peabody v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Trust, 892 F.2d 

772, 776 (9th Cir. 1989). A party may not remove a case twice based on the same 

grounds. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Courtfor Cent. Dist. ofCal., 837 F.2d 413,414 

(9th Cir. 1988) ("[A] second removal petition based on the same grounds does not 

'reinvest' the court's jurisdiction."); cf. Sys. Design Solutions Inc. v. Watch Sys. LLC, 

- 2- 13cv2123-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:13-cv-02123-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/17/13 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 

~~~~~~~~___ 

No. CV 09-6871, 2009 WL 3245813, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2009) ("[A] second 

attempt at removal is justified only when there has been a substantial change in the 

nature ofthe instant case since it was last in this court."). 

The second Notice ofRemoval does not state that there has been a change in the 

nature ofthe case or any subsequent pleading which might provide a basis for a second 

removal. The second Notice ofRemoval simply repeats the same arguments made by 

Defendant in the first Notice ofRemoval and the opposition to the motion to remand. 

F or the reasons discussed in the Court's August 26, 2013 Order, Defendant has failed 

to demonstrate that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to either 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a), or 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). See S.D. Cal. Case No. 13cv1544, ECF No. 

11 at 2-4. To the extent the second Notice ofRemoval contends that federal-question 

jurisdiction exists apart from 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), the existence of a defense based 

upon federal law or the United States Constitution is insufficient to confer subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th 

Cir. 2002) ("The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by 

the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded 

complaint.... [T]he existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to 

support jurisdiction.") (quotation omitted). The Court finds that the second Notice of 

Removal does not adequately state a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County ofSan Diego, where it was 

originally filed and assigned case number 37-20~-00033878

DATED: 9d7~~ y- WILLIAM Q. S 

UNITED STAT DISTRICT JUDGE 

- 3 - 13cv2123-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:13-cv-02123-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/17/13 Page 3 of 3