1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MG WATERLEAF APARTMENTS Case No.: 19-cv-1627-AJB-LL

SHL, LLC,

12

ORDER:

Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING THE 14

CASE BACK TO SAN DIEGO

JAMES BROWER,

15 SUPERIOR COURT; Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 17 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

18

AND

19 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 20

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

21 ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON

MOTION TO REMAND

22

23

24 Defendant James Brower removed his unlawful detainer case to federal court. 25 (Doc. No. 1.) Although no motion to remand has been filed, the Court has a continuous 26 duty to evaluate its jurisdiction over cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(3). Thus, for the reasons 27 herein, the Court REMANDS this action back to San Diego Superior Court and DENIES 28 Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and DENIES Plaintiff’s 1 ex parte application for an order shortening time on motion to remand. 2 I. DISCUSSION 3 Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 4 federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 5 establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 6 1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 7 at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 8 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 9 jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 10 must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 11 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 12 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 13 Although Plaintiff has not moved the Court to remand, “a district court’s duty to 14 establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See 15 United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 17 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an 18 ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo 19 Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. 20 Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 21 Defendants’ Notice of Removal asserted this Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1331. The federal statute cited raises federal question jurisdiction. For the reasons 23 explained below, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction nor diversity 24 jurisdiction over this action. 25 Here, Defendant’s current Notice of Removal is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 26

27 1 The Court notes that while Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time on motion 28 1 |j/alleging that there is federal question jurisdiction under the Protecting Tenants at 2 || Foreclosure Act. However, the subject matter of the complaint is a residential lease not a 3 || foreclosure action. Accordingly, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act is inapplicable 4 ||to the instant litigation. Furthermore, diversity jurisdiction cannot be established as there 5 ||is no diversity of citizenship amongst the parties and the amount in controversy is less than 6 || $75,000. 7 As the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant’s motion to 8 || proceed in forma pauperis is moot as well as Plaintiffs ex parte application for an order 9 || shortening time on motion to remand. 10 I. CONCLUSION 11 Because Defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction, removal was improper. The 12 |}Court REMANDS the case back to San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter 13 jurisdiction, DENIES Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and 14 || DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte application for an order shortening time on motion to remand 15 |}as moot. The Court Clerk is ordered to then close the case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: October 4, 2019 | ZS Zt □□□ 18 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28