Sage Home Mortgage, LLC v. Roohan et al

Filing 5

Sua Sponte Remanding Action to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot 3 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAGE HOME MORTGAGE, LLC,

Case No.: 17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:

v.
JAMES R. ROOHAN; and Does 1-10,
inclusive,

15
16

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION;

Defendants.

17

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AS MOOT; AND

18
19

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND AS MOOT
(Doc. Nos. 2, 3)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On July 12, 2017, Defendant James R. Roohan (“Removing Defendant”), acting pro
se, filed a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego Superior
Court, (Doc. No. 1), and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (Doc. No. 2).
Subsequently, Plaintiff Sage Home Mortgage, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to remand.
(Doc. No. 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 1), DENIES AS MOOT Removing
1
17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA

1

Defendant’s application to proceed IFP, (Doc. No. 2), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s

2

motion to remand, (Doc. No. 3).

3

BACKGROUND

4

The instant matter finds itself in federal court for the second time, having been

5

removed and remanded once before. The underlying facts remain the same: on December

6

19, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer suit in the Superior Court of California,

7

County of San Diego against Defendants James R. Roohan and Does 1-10 (collectively

8

referred to as “Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1 at 3–6.) Plaintiff alleges that on November 28,

9

2016, it purchased the premises located at 485 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 in

10

a non-judicial foreclosure sale under California law. (Id. at 4.) In spite of this purchase,

11

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have continued to possess the property and thus it seeks

12

damages including restitution, unpaid rent, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at 4–6.)

13

On February 10, 2017, Removing Defendant filed his first notice of removal based

14

on federal question jurisdiction in this Court—17-cv-00272. (Doc. No. 3-1 at 3.) However,

15

finding that the complaint relied entirely on state law, and that the removal notice offered

16

no facts regarding a substantial federal question nor a subject matter jurisdiction issue on

17

the basis of citizenship, Judge John A. Houston sua sponte remanded the case back to state

18

court. (Id.; Doc. No. 3-8.) On July 12, 2017, Removing Defendant filed his second notice

19

of removal that sought to remove the same unlawful detainer action.1 (Doc. No. 1.)

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over

22

matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

23

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from state court

24

to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the matter. 28

25
26

27

1

28

The Court notes that Removing Defendant puzzlingly selected “U.S. Government
Defendant” on the civil cover sheet and cited 23 U.S.C. § 1345 as the grounds for removal.
(Doc. No. 1-1.)
2
17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA

1

U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v.

2

Countrywide Home Loans Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). There is a

3

“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal always

4

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,

5

566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, federal jurisdiction

6

must be rejected. Id. at 567. At any time during court proceedings, a district court may

7

remand a case to state court if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

8

case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

9

DISCUSSION

10

Removing Defendant’s notice of removal alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over

11

the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or (b). (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Federal question

12

jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

13

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Jurisdiction in

14

federal question cases is “governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides

15

that federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the

16

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

17

386, 392 (1987). Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity among

18

opposing parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

19

Despite the clear and straightforward order by Judge Houston that was filed in

20

February of this year, Removing Defendant is seeking to remove the same action to the

21

district court again. However, Removing Defendant’s second attempt to bring his case to

22

federal court is not only frivolous, but wholly flawed. Here, Removing Defendant attaches

23

to his notice a short statement of his allegations regarding the lending history behind the

24

property, complaints against different people involved in the sale of the property, and the

25

instant action for unlawful detainer. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) However, the Court again highlights

26

that the complaint affirmatively shows that the only allegation is for a single claim for

27

unlawful detainer, which is a California state law cause of action. (Doc. No. 1 at 3 (see

28

Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
3
17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA

1

June 6, 2011) (“An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law

2

but is purely a creature of California law.”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No.

3

CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010))).

4

The Court also notes that Removing Defendant makes no claims that removal is

5

appropriate based on diversity jurisdiction. Looking at the complaint, the Court finds that

6

Plaintiff and Removing Defendant are both citizens of California. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Thus,

7

the complete diversity between the parties that is needed for a finding of diversity

8

jurisdiction is lacking.

9

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the complaint does not “necessarily

10

raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial,” which this Court “may

11

entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state

12

judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545

13

U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see also Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485-

14

MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its

15

Complaint in Superior Court asserting a single claim for unlawful detainer premised solely

16

on California law. Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal

17

question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question

18

jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”). Consequently, as the complaint in the

19

instant action does not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction is not present,

20

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

21

On a final note, Plaintiff has asked the Court to sanction Removing Defendant for

22

allegedly abusing the court system by removing his case a second time for the purpose of

23

increasing costs on Plaintiff and delaying trial. (Doc. No. 3-1 at 9.) After reviewing the

24

pleadings, the Court has reason to believe that Removing Defendant has indeed been using

25

notices of removal and stays of action to unduly delay court proceedings and frustrate

26

judicial economy. (See generally Doc. Nos. 1, 3.) However, the Court does not deem

27

sanctions to be appropriate at this time. Nevertheless, the Court warns Removing

28

Defendant that if he chooses to make any further filings in the district court regarding the
4
17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA

1

instant matter, the Court will initiate proceedings to hold him in contempt of court for

2

violation of this order, subjecting Removing Defendant to remain in custody as well as

3

fines.

4

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7
8
9

The Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San Diego Superior Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

2.

Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and
Plaintiff’s motion to remand, (Doc. No. 3), are DENIED AS MOOT.

10
11

Dated: July 27, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA