SD Coastline LP v. Pastor et al

Filing 4

ORDER Remanding Case. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/3/2012.(Certified copy of this Order mailed to San Diego County Superior Court).(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SD COASTLINE LP,

Case No. 12cv2780 BTM(KSC)

8

Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY PASTOR, PERLA M. PASTOR,
and DOES 1-20,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

9
10

Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On November 12, 2012, Defendant Perla M. Pastor removed this unlawful detainer
action from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Ms. Pastor contends that
removal is proper because the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the matter.
However, upon review of the underlying Complaint, the unlawful detainer action was
brought pursuant to state law and does not arise under federal law as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331.

Whether a claim “arises under” federal law 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 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar v. Williams,
482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Ms. Pastor contends that the Court has federal question
jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s notice to vacate the Property was defective under 12 U.S.C.
section 5220. However, it is “settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court
on the basis of a federal defense.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).
Furthermore, the Court has no basis for concluding that diversity jurisdiction exists.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While the Notice of Removal states that the action originally could
have been filed in this Court pursuant to “§ 1441(a) and/or (b)” (ECF No. 1 at 2), Ms. Pastor

1

12cv2780 BTM(KSC)

1

appears to rely solely on federal question jurisdiction, and there is nothing to support

2

diversity jurisdiction from the face of the complaint. See id. at 2-3; Compl. at 1. Therefore,

3

§ 1441(b) is inapplicable. In addition, defendants may not remove an action to federal court

4

if they are citizens of the state in which the action is brought, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and as

5

shown by the nature of the Complaint, Ms. Pastor is a citizen of California.

6

The removing defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper,

7

and the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

8

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to

9

state court for further proceedings.

10
11
DATED: December 3, 2012
12
13

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

12cv2780 BTM(KSC)