Sage Home Mortgage, LLC v. Carolino et al

Filing 5

ORDER Remanding Action to State Court. Having carefully reviewed the Notice of Removal and the accompanying documents, the Court finds and concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the removal is procedurally de fective. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to return the case to state court forthwith, terminate any pending motions, and close this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/20/2018.(rmc)(Certified copy mailed to San Diego Superior Court)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 18cv1171-MMA (KSC)

SAGE HOME MORTGAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT

RICKY CAROLINO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On June 5, 2018, Defendants Ricky and Shirley Carolina filed a Notice of Removal

18

from the State of California, Superior Court for the County of San Diego. See Doc. No.

19

1. The state court complaint alleges a claim against Defendants for unlawful detainer.

20

On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff Sage Home Mortgage, LLC filed a motion to remand this

21

action to state court. See Doc. No. 2. Having reviewed Defendants’ Notice of Removal,

22

the Court finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the removal is

23

procedurally defective, and sua sponte remand is appropriate. As such, no further

24

briefing regarding Defendants’ pending motion is necessary. For the reasons set forth

25

below, the Court REMANDS this action to San Diego County Superior Court.

26
27
28

DISCUSSION
Federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power authorized by the
1
18cv1171-MMA (KSC)

1

Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541,

2

106 S. Ct. 1326, 89 L. Ed. 2d 501 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues

3

related to federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v.

4

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero

5

Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28

6

U.S.C. § 1441, et seq. A state court action can only be removed if it could have

7

originally been brought in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392,

8

(1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, for an action to be

9

removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either

10

that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily

11

depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board

12

of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11

13

(1983). Additionally, a federal court also has jurisdiction over an action involving

14

citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28

15

U.S.C. § 1332.

16

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal,

17

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Nishimoto v.

18

Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). “Federal

19

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

20

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Whether federal

21

jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S.

22

at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful doctrine [that] severely limits the

23

number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’ that may be initiated in or

24

removed to federal district court . . . .” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9-10. Under this

25

rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

26

pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183

27

(9th Cir. 2002).

28
2
18cv1171-MMA (KSC)

1

Here, Defendants indicate in their removal papers that jurisdiction in this Court is

2

based federal question jurisdiction. The presence or absence of federal question

3

jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that

4

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

5

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A review of the

6

state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a single unlawful detainer

7

claim against Defendants under California state law. Plaintiff’s state court complaint

8

does not present a federal question of law that would provide this Court with jurisdiction

9

over this matter.

10

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal,

11

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v.

12

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be

13

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.

14

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

15

Defendants assert that this action is properly removable, but set forth no basis for

16

this assertion in their Notice of Removal. Liberally construing the notice, which the

17

Court is not obliged to do based on Defendants’ representation by counsel, any purported

18

federal rights or claims would be defenses and potential counterclaims against Plaintiff.

19

However, neither defenses nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a

20

federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank,

21

556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or

22

anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005)

23

(“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal

24

court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's

25

complaint.”). As such, Defendants’ allegations do not establish federal question

26

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, Defendants concede that they have

27

instituted a separate action in this Court “to address federal questions and to add essential

28

parties to the [a]judication of these federal questions.” Notice ¶ 1.
3
18cv1171-MMA (KSC)

1

Defendants also fail to establish that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant

2

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal does not demonstrate that the amount in

3

controversy exceeds $75,000, and the face of the state court complaint clearly

4

demonstrates that Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount less than $10,000. Moreover,

5

Defendants, citizens of California, may not properly remove this action. Under 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1441(b), removal is permitted in diversity cases only when “none of the parties in

7

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such

8

action is brought.”

9
10

In sum, Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

11
12

CONCLUSION
Having carefully reviewed the Notice of Removal and the accompanying

13

documents, the Court finds and concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction

14

over this action and the removal is procedurally defective. Accordingly, the Court

15

REMANDS this action to the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The Court

16

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to return the case to state court forthwith, terminate any

17

pending motions, and close this action.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 20, 2018

_______________________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
18cv1171-MMA (KSC)