UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 2:25-cv-08860-SPG-SSC Date November 10, 2025 Title Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Martiza Escoto et al

ee Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff Wilmington Trust, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in California Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 7). On June 6, 2025, Escoto removed the case to federal court, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See (ECF No. 1-1 at 81-82). On June 9, 2025, the Court, on its own motion, remanded the action to state court. See (id. at 82). On September 17, 2025, Escoto again removed the case to federal court, again invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. See (ECF No. 1 at 1). Thereafter, on October 23, 2025, Escoto filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) and, on November 7, 2025, filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 33). As the Court previously explained, federal courts have an independent duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in every case. See (id. at 82 (citing Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) and Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152, 157 (2023)). “Under the ‘well- pleaded complaint rule,’ federal court jurisdiction exists only if the ‘federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” (/d. at 83 (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). As such, “federal question jurisdiction ‘cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.” (/d. (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

U.S. 49, 60 (2009)).

Here, “the state court complaint asserts just one cause of action for unlawful detainer based upon California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(a).” (/d.); see also (ECF No. 1 at 28- 31). Therefore, “the Complaint does not contain a federal question because the sole cause of action alleged against Escoto (and her co-Defendant, Clifton Kerr) is purely a California state law claim.” (/d. at 83). As such, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. See (id.).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

JS-6

Case No. 2:25-cv-08860-SPG-SSC Date November 10, 2025 Title Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Martiza Escoto et al

Therefore, the Court, on its own motion, REMANDS this Case to the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The Court further DENIES Escoto’s Motion to Dismiss and Ex Parte Application as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer pg