1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.: 23cv01500 JAH-WVG

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

13 v. 14 SUSAN CARRE, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 1, 2022, Plaintiff The Irvine Company LLC filed a complaint in the 19 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for unlawful detainer against Susan R. 20 Carre, Charlene Nutton and Does 1 to 10 inclusive. The complaint only alleges a state law 21 claim and is a limited civil case with a demand under $25,000. Defendant Susan Carre, 22 appearing pro se, filed a notice of removal on August 15, 2023. For the reasons set forth 23 below, this Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over the complaint and, therefore, sua sponte 24 remands the matter to state court for all further proceedings. 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Legal Standard 27 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Kokkoken v. Gardian Life Ins. Co., 28 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it 1 confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 2 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Thus, at any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua 3 sponte remand a case to state court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 4 case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 5 Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 6 can be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. See Caterpillar, 7 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a party invoking the federal removal 8 statutes must establish jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence of: (1) a statutory basis; 9 (2) a federal question; or (3) diversity of the parties. See Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford 10 Acc. And Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981). District courts must construe 11 the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as to removability 12 in favor of remanding the case to state court. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 13 1988). The burden is on the removing party to demonstrate federal subject matter 14 jurisdiction over the case. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 15 Cir. 1988). 16 II. Analysis 17 Upon review of the notice of removal and the complaint, this Court finds it 18 appropriate to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the notice of removal fails 19 to establish a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The complaint asserts a single cause 20 of action for unlawful detainer which does not arise under federal law. Defendant asserts 21 violations of her constitutional rights during the state court proceedings. A federal defense 22 is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392 23 (“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 24 plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”) Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer fails to 25 support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court deems it 26 appropriate to sua sponte remand the matter to state court. 27 // 28 // l CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the instant complaint is sua 3 || sponte REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. 4 ||DATED: September 13, 2023 5 6 JQHN A. HOUSTON 7 Anited States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28