Grace L. Hernandez Trust v. Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo et al

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01337
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:26-cv-01337-CAS-ADS Date February 11, 2026 Title Grace L. Hernandez Trust v. Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo et al

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Daniel Torrez Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On July 25, 2025, plaintiff Grace L. Hernandez Trust filed this unlawful detainer action against defendants Alberto Saenz Lozano, Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo, and Does 1 to 10, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 8.! Defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo removed the case to this Court on February 9, 2026. Id. at 1. Defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo concurrently filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 3. Defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question. Dkt. 1 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1441). It appears that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The law is clear that “[u|nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.” Federal Nat’] Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat’] Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). A defendant’s attempt at creating

1 The Court notes that co-defendant Alberto Saenz Lozano previously attempted to remove the same underlying state court action, Case No. 25NWUD01281. See Grace L. Hernandez Trust v. Alberto Saenz Lozano et al, No. 2:26-cv-00682-CAS-PD [Dkt. 1] (January 22, 2026). Defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo did not notice that case as related or identical to the instant removal on her civil cover sheet, as required by L.R. 83-1.3. See dkt. 1-1 at 3. The Court warns defendants that further attempts at removal relating to the same unlawful detainer action may result in sanctions.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:26-cv-01337-CAS-ADS Date February 11, 2026 Title Grace L. Hernandez Trust v. Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo et al

federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See Dkt. 1. Defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo claims that she withheld rent as a consequence of plaintiff discriminating against her and her co-tenant in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(£)(3) (A), (C)(1), and (C)(a). Id. at 2-3. However, a defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or asserting defenses. McAtee, 479 F.3d at 1145. Accordingly, the Court appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300 at *6. Accordingly, defendant Maria Raquel Saenz Castillo is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before February 25, 2026, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer DT