1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. BANK NATIONAL Case No.: 19cv1938 AJB BLM ASSOCIATION, As Trustee for 12 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-8, ORDER: 13 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-8, its assignees and/or SUA SPONTE REMANDING THE 14 successors, CASE BACK TO SAN DIEGO 15 SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 SALEM SOMO and DOES 1-10, 18 Inclusive, 19 Defendant.

20 Defendant Salem Somo (“Defendant”) removed this unlawful detainer case to 21 federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) Although no motion to remand has been filed, the Court has a 22 continuous duty to evaluate its jurisdiction over cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(3). Thus, for 23 the reasons herein, the Court REMANDS this action back to San Diego Superior Court.

24 I. DISCUSSION 25 Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 26 federal court.

. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 27 establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 28 1 1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 2 at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 3 jurisdiction.”

(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 4 jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 5 must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle,

(9th Cir. 6 1996); see also Gaus,

(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 7 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 8 Although Plaintiffs have not moved the Court to remand, “a district court’s duty to 9 establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See 10 United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004). 11 Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman,

, 1149 n.8 12 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an 13 ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo 14 Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P.,

(2004) (quoting United States v. S. 15 Cal. Edison Co.,

(E.D. Cal. 2004)). 16 Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1331, 1441(a) and 1446. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiff 18 “expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 19 2009.’” For the reasons explained below, the Court does not have federal question 20 jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over this action. 21 First, there is no federal question because the unlawful detainer complaint only 22 invokes California law. (See Doc. No. 1 at 6-7.) Generally, “[f]ederal jurisdiction typically 23 exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 24 pleaded complaint.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005). The 25 complaint filed in state court solely concerns unlawful detainer under California law and 26 does not even reference a federal statute as Defendant suggests. See Aurora Loan Servs., 27 LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485-MCE-KJN-PS,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 28 Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its Complaint in Superior Court asserting a single claim 1 unlawful detainer premised solely on California law. Because a claim for unlawful 2 || detainer does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction 3 ||of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the 4 ||Complaint.”); see also Sage Home Mortg., LLC v. Roohan, No.: 17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA, 5 U.S. Dist. LEXTS 118119, at * (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (same). Accordingly, federal 6 || question jurisdiction does not exist. 7 Diversity jurisdiction also fails to provide this Court with jurisdiction as Plaintiffs’ 8 || principal place of business is California and Defendant resides in California. Moreover, the 9 || amount in controversy in the complaint does not exceed the statutory minimum of $75,000 10 required to invoke diversity jurisdiction. “In unlawful detainer actions, . . . the amount of 11 damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the 12 |}amount in controversy.” Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 13 ||

, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). Here, the state court complaint states the 14 “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Thus, the total amount of 15 || damages is well below the $75,000 statutory minimum for diversity jurisdiction. 16 I. CONCLUSION 17 Because Defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, 18 removal was improper. The Court, sua sponte, REMANDS this case back to the San Diego 19 || Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court Clerk is ORDERED to 20 || then close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: October 16, 2019 | ZS Zt □□□ 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28