# Flagstar Bank, N.A. v. Santiago > District Court, S.D. California · October 31, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10088565 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. California - **Decided:** October 31, 2023 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10088565 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that whether a case arises under federal law 2 must be established based on the plaintiff’s complaint ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No.: 23-cv-1889-WQH-AHG Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 LEVI SANTIAGO and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 On October 16, 2023, Hailey Brooks (“Brooks”), proceeding pro se, removed the 18 above-titled action to this Court from the Superior Court of California, Case No. 37-2023- 19 00013363-CL-UD-CTL. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Brooks states that she is a defendant in this 20 action and “is a bona fide tenant under the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.’” Id. at 21 2. Brooks attached to the Notice of Removal the first page of an unlawful detainer 22 complaint filed in state court that lists “Flagstar Bank, N.A.” as Plaintiff and “Levi Santiago 23 and Does 1-100” as Defendants. Id. at 10. 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” that “possess only that power 25 authorized” by the United States Constitution and federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 26 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, federal courts “have an 27 independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the 28 1 absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); 2 see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“Article III generally 3 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it 4 considers the merits of a case”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 5 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The burden 6 of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction “rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.” 7 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove an action 8 filed in state court to federal court if the federal court would have original subject matter 9 jurisdiction over the action.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 10 (9th Cir. 2009). District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under 11 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For an action to 12 “arise under” federal law, as is asserted by Brooks in this case, “[a] right or immunity 13 created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential 14 one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction 15 Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l 16 Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936)). 17 Based upon the first page of the initiating document in the state court, Brooks is not 18 a party to this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only permits removal by a defendant. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action 20 brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 21 jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants….”); Am. Int’l 22 Underwriters, (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1240 (9th Cir. 1988) 23 (“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”). 24 Brooks has not pointed to any authority indicating that she may be transformed into a 25 defendant in this case. Further, Brooks has not attached the entirety of the complaint in the 26 state court proceeding, which is necessary for the Court to assess the existence of subject 27 matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (requiring the removing party to file “a copy of 28 all process, pleadings, and orders” served in the underlying action in the district court); 1 Franchise Tax Bd.., 463 U.S. at 10 (stating that whether a case arises under federal law 2 must be established based on the plaintiff’s complaint). In addition, Brooks removes this 3 action based upon federal question jurisdiction. The first page of the state court complaint, 4 see ECF No. 1. at 10, states that the action is an unlawful detainer action, which is a cause 5 of action that is purely a matter of state law. See Muhammad v. N. Richmond Senior Hous., 6 Inc., No. 15-cv-00629-WHO, 2015 WL 1154209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015) 7 (“California federal courts have repeatedly held that unlawful detainer cases brought under 8 California’s unlawful detainer statute do not raise federal questions.”); Fed. Nat’l. Mortg. 9 Ass’n v. Enshiwat, No. CV 12-631 CAS (CWx), 2012 WL 683106, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10 2, 2012) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.”); 11 Franks v. Franks, No. 3:17-CV-893-CAB-AGS, 2017 WL 1735169, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12 4, 2017) (same); see also Sec. of Veterans Affairs v. Smith, 18cv598-MMA (BLM), 2018 13 WL 1444583, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) (collecting federal district court cases that 14 have held a Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act defense “cannot serve as a basis for 15 removal”). 16 Additionally, Brooks filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF 17 No. 2.) Brooks states in her application that, in total, she has $0.00 of income per month. 18 Id. at 1. However, Brooks attached to her Notice of Removal a state court fee waiver form, 19 which states that she is employed as a waitress at The Yellow Deli – Valley Center and 20 receives food stamps. (ECF No. 1 at 13.) It appears that Brooks has not accurately 21 completed the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hailey Brooks is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE 23 why this action should not be remanded to state court for a lack of subject matter 24 jurisdiction. Brooks must file a response to this Order within fourteen (14) days of the 25 date this Order is filed. In the response, Brooks must do the following: (a) demonstrate 26 subject matter jurisdiction, (b) attach a copy of the entire state court complaint and all other 27 “process, pleadings, and orders” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, and (c) either pay the filing 28 fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accurately and entirely | |}completed. If Brooks fails to timely demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction and pay the 2 || filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will order that 3 || this action be remanded to state court. 4 Dated: October 30, 2023 itt Z. A a 5 Hon. William Q. Hayes 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10088565. Public record. Not legal advice.