Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 20, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00970
StatusUnknown

This text of Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose (Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-00970-CAS-Ex Date February 20, 2025 Title Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose et al

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang 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 December 5, 2019, plaintiff Jubilio Escalera (“plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Alonzo Jose (“Jose”); Argent Mortgage Co. LLC; “All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property That’s Described in the Complaint That Is Adverse to The Plaintiff's Title or any Cloud on Plaintiff's Title Thereto”: and Does 1-10 (“defendants”). Dkt. 1 at 7. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asserts twelve claims: (1) fraud; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) quiet title; (4) slander of title; (5) to void and/or cancel ab initio the deed of trust and promissory note recorded as instrument number 05-0248292: (6) accounting; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) fraud in the execution of the deed of trust and promissory note number 05-0248292: (9) to cancel a voidable contract under California Revenue & Taxation Code § 23304.1 et seg.: (10) a violation of California Corporations Code § 191(C)(7); (11) a violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 ef seqg.; and (12) declaratory relief. Id. On February 4, 2025, defendant Jose removed the case to this Court. Id. at 1. Jose concurrently filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Jose asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question. Dkt. | at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). His notice of removal, titled “Notice of and Application for the Removal of the Unlawful Detainer in State Court Action,” seeks that “relief be granted by removing the unlawful detainer case to Federal Court,” where defendants’ “case can be heard.” Id. at 1, 3.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-00970-CAS-Ex Date February 20, 2025 Title Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose et al

It appears that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Despite the references to unlawful detainer in Jose’s notice of removal, plaintiff does not assert a claim for unlawful detainer in the underlying complaint. See dkt. 1 at 7. Even if this was an unlawful detainer case, this Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction. 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.”). Given that plaintiff does not assert an unlawful detainer claim, the Court analyzes if subject matter jurisdiction exists for the twelve claims actually asserted in his complaint. First, plaintiff's complaint does not appear to present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because all of his claims arise under state law. Second, while plaintiff is referred to as a California resident in the complaint and seeks at least $1 million in damages, defendants’ citizenships are not apparent from the complaint or the notice of removal. See dkt. 1 at 11, 16. The Court therefore cannot determine if the parties are completely diverse and if subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, Jose is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before March 7, 2025, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer OM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jubilio Escalera v. Alonzo Jose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jubilio-escalera-v-alonzo-jose-cacd-2025.