Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jacinto Gutierrez et al

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING Case to State Court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. On April 23, 2014, Defendant Somphit Saelim ("Defendant") filed a notice of removal of a civil action for unalwful detainer brought by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Plaintiff"). See Dkt. #1. After reviewing Defendant's notice of removal and the underlying complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty: Sheriff's Office , 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011)('The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction."). Accordingly, the Court finds that it lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and thus REMAND the case. Case number 13U12631 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Remand letter) (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6 (lc)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-3124 PSG (JCx)

Title

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gutierrez, et al.

Present:

Date

May 5, 2014

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to State Court

On April 23, 2014, Defendant Somphit Saelim (“Defendant”) filed a notice of removal of
a civil action for unlawful detainer brought by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“Plaintiff”). See Dkt. # 1. After reviewing Defendant’s notice of removal and the underlying
complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Moore v.
Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court is obligated to
determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any
time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to the propriety of removal, federal
jurisdiction must be rejected. See id. Furthermore, “a defendant may not [generally] remove a
case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’
federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (emphasis in original).
The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face of
the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under § 28 U.S.C. 1331 to exist. See Rivet v. Regions
Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Here, the complaint asserts only a claim for unlawful
detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the
complaint, no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6 (lc)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-3124 PSG (JCx)

Date

May 5, 2014

Title

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gutierrez, et al.

Defendant’s notice of removal suggests that federal question jurisdiction is established
based upon the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the National Housing Act of 1934.
See NOR at 1. However, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s federal claims or
defenses may not serve as a basis for removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d
815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985); Le v. Young Champions Recreation Programs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
36074, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2008) (“[R]emoval cannot be based on a counterclaim, crossclaim or third party claim raising a federal question; to hold otherwise would allow defendants to
determine the removeability of a case.”).
The Court also notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal
court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the parties
and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7
U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The unlawful detainer complaint seeks
damages in an amount less than $75,000. Compl. at 3-4. Therefore, the amount in controversy
requirement is not met.
Defendant’s notice of removal ultimately alleges that removal jurisdiction is proper based
on 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See NOR ¶ 7. Under Section 1441, a party may remove an action to the
district court embracing the state court where the action is currently pending if the district court
would also have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Since Defendant has failed to
provide a sufficient basis for original federal jurisdiction, the action cannot properly be removed
under Section 1441.
Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and
thus REMANDS the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2