1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SYNCHRONY BANK, ) Case No.: 25-cv-265-BEN-SBC 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) 13 v. ) ) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 14 PETER SZANTO ) SUPERIOR COURT OF 15 Defendant. ) CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN ) DIEGO 16 ) 17 ) ) 18 ) 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff filed its Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San 21 Diego alleging a breach of contract of a credit cardholder agreement and damages of 22 $5,134.58. Defendant removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff now moves to remand 23 the case back to state court asserting federal jurisdiction is lacking. The motion to 24 remand is granted. 25 26 II. DISCUSSION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. 27 Wullschleger,

(2025). Federal-question jurisdiction enables federal 28 1 courts to decide cases founded on federal law.

“A suit most typically falls within that 2 statutory grant ‘when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.’”

(quoting 3 Gunn v. Minton,

(2013)). However, the determination of jurisdiction 4 is based “only on the allegations in the plaintiff’s ‘well-pleaded complaint’—not on any 5 issue the defendant may raise.”

(citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction 6 Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.,

, 9–10 (1983)). “That 7 longstanding rule makes the complaint—the plaintiff’s own claims and allegations—the 8 key to ‘arising under’ jurisdiction. 9 If the complaint presents no federal question, a federal court may not hear the 10 suit.”

After a defendant removes a case to federal court, as was done here, if it 11 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded 12 to state court. “That is because, to return to where we started, federal courts are courts of 13 limited jurisdiction: When they do not have . . . authorization to resolve a suit, they must 14 hand it over.”

(citation omitted). 15 The Plaintiff’s claim presents no federal question. Defendant insists that federal 16 jurisdiction is present based on counterclaims he intends to file. The counterclaims 17 would allege defamation and a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 18 However, removal may not be based on unfiled counterclaims. Valinor Holdings, LLC v. 19 Toliver, No. 2:25-CV-00742-DAD-SCR (PS),

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 20 2025) (“Moreover, even assuming that defendant can assert a federal defense or 21 counterclaim, she cannot use that as the basis for removal because the defensive 22 invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this court's jurisdiction.”); American 23 Express Nat'l Bank v. Goldsmith, No. 2:24-CV-01464-GMN-NJK,

, at 24 *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 22, 2024) (“Here, Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim arising under 25 state law against Defendant. Nowhere on the face of Plaintiff's complaint does it state a 26 federal claim. Defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of a federal claim—TILA— 27 cannot be used as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Thus, this Court lacks federal 28 question jurisdiction over the claim.”). Instead, the general rule of Wullschleger applies 1 requiring remand of this case back to the state court. 2 III. CONCLUSION 3 The instant action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of 4 San Diego. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: April 4, 2025 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 7 United States District Judge 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28