Dong H Kwak v. Claudia Zubia, 2:13-cv-01528

Kwak filed an unlawful detainer action in California state court against Zubia; Perea attempted removal to federal court without proper basis.
Removal was challenged as improper: court found no federal subject matter jurisdiction or proper basis for removal.
Plaintiff Kwak is a California resident and natural person; the state-court complaint seeks li mited (likely under $75,000) damages.
In the removal notice, Zubia did not sign; only Perea signed the notice of removal.
Court ordered remand to state court for lack of jurisdiction and directed service of the remand order to the parties.
The court noted lack of complete diversity (Kwak is a natural person resident of California) and lack of federal-question jurisdiction, citing well-established Supreme Court cases on removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was proper due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction	Kwak contends no federal jurisdiction exists (no diversity, no federal question).	Perea argues removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.	Removal improper; jurisdiction lacking; remand required.
Whether the amount in controversy meets the threshold for federal jurisdiction	Kwak's complaint shows amount not exceeding 10,000.	Even if diverse, the amount would not meet the $75,000 threshold.	Amount in controversy not met; supports remand.
Whether removal complied with signatory requirements for removal notices		Removal notice was not properly signed by the named defendant.	Removal invalid for improper signing; remand stands.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (limits on removal; no federal jurisdiction absent proper basis)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Etc., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (arises under federal law; plaintiff's complaint must establish federal question)
Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1986) (court discussed proper signing of removal notices)