Amerihome Mortgage Company, LLC v. Mayra Salcedo, 5:17-cv-01733

Amerihome Mortgage Company filed an unlawful detainer action in Riverside County Superior Court seeking possession under California law.
Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction.
The district court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court records sua sponte.
The complaint contains only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not allege federal causes of action.
Removal defendants relied on asserted federal defenses and argued for diversity/amount-in-controversy, but the complaint alleges a limited civil action (under $25,000) and not complete diversity.
The court determined subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking and ordered remand to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	Complaint raises only state-law claims; no federal question	Federal-law affirmative defenses give rise to federal question jurisdiction	No — federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction; jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s complaint
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	Plaintiffs are California parties; complaint is limited civil action under $25,000	Removal asserts diversity and amount in controversy met	No — not all parties are diverse and amount in controversy not plausibly > $75,000
Whether removal was proper	State action should remain unless federal jurisdiction clearly exists	Removal was proper only if original federal jurisdiction established	Case remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether court may raise jurisdiction sua sponte	N/A	N/A	Yes — court must remand if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and may raise it sua sponte

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and strictly construed)
Great N. R.R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (suit begun in state court remains there absent congressional authorization for removal)
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.) (removal statutes construed narrowly)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (burden on removing defendant to show federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (removing party bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir.) (federal-law affirmative defense does not render a state claim removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (defense-based federal-question removal improper even if defense is only real issue)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (subject-matter jurisdiction non-waivable; remand required if lacking)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir.) (court may raise lack of jurisdiction at any time)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (removing party must plausibly show amount in controversy when challenged)