Central Mortgage Company v. Anderson et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and remanding case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/30/13. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: copy to Superior Court)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,

12

CASE NO. 13cv2331-LAB (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

vs.
13
14

DUANE ANDERSON,

ORDER OF REMAND
Defendant.

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

Plaintiff Central Mortgage Company filed an unlawful detainer action in California
state court. Defendant Duane Anderson then filed a notice of removal, asserting federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because, he argues, his defense or
counterclaim raises federal questions. Anderson also moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The Court is obliged to examine its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, B.C. v.
Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999), and to remand any removed
action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "Where doubt regarding the right
to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court." Matheson v. Progressive
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the well-pleaded complaint
rule, federal question jurisdiction only exists when the complaint is based on federal law;
federal questions in defenses or counterclaims are insufficient. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

-1-

13cv2331

1

U.S. 49, 59–60, 70 (2009). The claims in the complaint arise only under state law; no federal

2

question is presented. There is no showing that jurisdiction would exist for some other

3

reason, such as diversity.

4

Because the notice of removal does not show why this action was removable, it is

5

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, from which it

6

was removed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 30, 2013

10
11

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

13cv2331