HSBC Bank USA National Association v. Vien Phuong Ho

facts to show that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. As to federal question jurisdiction, here the complaint raises a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. It has been consistently held that “a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, [hence] no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.” See, e.g., ESA Management, LLC v. Kaler, No.: 3:23-cv-01324-RBM-MMP, 2023 WL 4932088, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023), quoting Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485-MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011). Additionally, it has been held that a defense to a state cause of action which is premised upon federal law cannot be the ground for a removal based upon a federal question. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1987); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). Finally, it is noted that Plaintiff has filed this motion on an ex parte basis. Normally, a motion to remand should not be considered without…