JMK Properties, Inc. v. Heatherly

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01961
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JMK PROPERTIES, INC., Case No.: 3:25-cv-01961-RBM-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 MIKE D. HEATHERLY II, REMAND [Doc. 2]; 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION 16 [Doc. 3] 17 (3) REMANDING CASE TO STATE 18 COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 19 MATTER JURISDICTION

20 [Doc. 2–3] 21 22 23 On July 31, 2025, Defendant Mike D. Heatherly II, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice 24 of Removal (“Notice of Removal”) removing a state court unlawful detainer action, Case 25 No. 25UD030981C, from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central 26 Division (“San Diego Superior Court”) to this court. (Doc. 1.) On August 13, 2025, 27 Defendant JMK Properties (“JMK”) filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 2) with an Ex Parte 28 Application for an Order Shortening Time on Motion to Remand (“Ex Parte”) (Doc. 3). 1 JMK requests an order shortening time on its Motion to Remand. (Id. at 1. ) Defendant 2 has not opposed the Ex Parte and has responded to the Motion to Remand. (Doc. 5.) 3 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS JMK’s Ex Parte, GRANTS 4 JMK’s Motion to Remand, and REMANDS this action to San Diego Superior Court. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 JMK initiated the state court unlawful detainer action against Defendant on June 13, 7 2025 after service of a Three-Day Notice to Quit as to the premises at 1188 Waxwing 8 Drive, Vista, California. (Doc. 1-2 at 2–16.) The state court Complaint indicates that 9 Defendant, the former owner of the property, has continued to occupy the premises despite 10 JMK’s purchase of the property at a trustee’s sale following foreclosure and the Three-Day 11 Notice to Quit being served on May 29, 2025. (Id. at 10–11.) 12 Defendant’s Notice of Removal cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for jurisdiction and 13 asserts “that original jurisdiction is founded on a claim or right arising under a law of the 14 United States.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) However, no federal question is identified. On August 13, 15 2025, Defendant filed a document titled “Notice of No Ability to Sustain a Persona Standi 16 in Judico” that seems to be an attempt to address jurisdiction in some respect by reference 17 to the “Trading With The Enemy Act.” (Doc. 4.) However, Defendant does not identify 18 any valid basis for federal question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action in the 19 filing. (Id.) 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 22 States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the 23 district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where 24 such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, “[i]f at any time before final 25 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 26 be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[F]ederal jurisdiction ‘must be rejected if there is 27

28 1 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.’” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 2 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 JMK argues that its “cause of action against Defendant[] arise[s] solely under state 5 law, namely the unlawful detainer statutes as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure 6 § 1161a et seq,” and “Defendant’s removal based on a federal question fails.” (Doc. 2-1 7 at 3–4). Additionally, JMK asserts that there is no diversity jurisdiction because the 8 amount in controversy is less than $75,000. (Id. at 3.) Defendant seems to agree with 9 JMK’s assertions in the Motion to Remand. (See Doc. 5.) On August 21, 2025, Defendant 10 filed a document titled “Non-Negotiable Notice of Acceptance” that quotes the entirety of 11 JMK’s Motion to Remand and then states “I indicate my acceptance of your offers by my 12 signature and date. I do not argue the facts, jurisdiction, law, or venue.” (Doc. 5 at 3.) 13 Regardless of Defendant’s acceptance or lack of opposition to JMK’s Motion to 14 Remand, the Court concludes subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and this case must be 15 remanded. The Court first notes that to the extent Defendant is asserting the Court has 16 subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, the Court disagrees. Even if the parties were 17 diverse, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction requires “the 18 matter in controversy exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 19 The Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction. Under § 1331, the provision 20 Defendant appears to rely on, district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions 21 that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 22 “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 23 ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction 24 of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th 25 Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8– 26 9 (1983)). 27 Here, the Court finds there is no federal question jurisdiction because the state court 28 action is an unlawful detainer proceeding pursuant to California law. See Aurora Loan 1 || Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485-MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. 2 Nov. 9, 2011) (“Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a 3 || federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal 4 || question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”’). The Complaint presents only 5 ||a state law claim that does not involve any federal law. In the absence of jurisdiction based 6 || on diversity or federal question, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 7 JMK’s Ex Parte request that the Court consider its Motion to Remand on a shortened 8 || basis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. Defendant did not oppose the Ex Parte and Defendant has 9 an opportunity to respond to the Motion to Remand. (Doc. 5.) 10 IV. CONCLUSION 1] For the foregoing reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 12 || JMK’s Ex Parte (Doc. 3) and Motion to Remand (Doc. 2) are GRANTED. This action is 13 |} REMANDED to San Diego Superior Court. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 12, 2025 Fe Le ; ? L > 16 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28