United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Carl James Trujillo removed this case from Clackamas County
Circuit Court. Plaintiff Green Tree Servicing comes before
the Court seeking remand of this case back to the Clackamas
County Circuit Court. For the reasons set forth below, I
GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Remand to State Court .
originally filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure on real
property located in Oregon in Clackamas County Circuit Court
in August 2015. The state court granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant in May 2017.
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal  from the Clackamas
County Circuit Court on June 27, 2018.
doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be
remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)
(per curiam). “The removal statute is strictly
construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires
resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v.
Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.
2009). “The presumption against removal means that
‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing
that removal is proper.'” Id. (quoting
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
Defendant's Removal is Untimely
defendant must file a notice of removal of a civil action
within 30 days of defendant receiving notice of the initial
pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). The state court docket
indicates that Plaintiff served Defendant with the initial
pleading on August 27, 2015. As that was more than three
years ago, Defendant's removal to federal court is
This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
action may be removed to federal court if the district court
to which it is removed would have had original jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
cannot be waived. Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn,
341 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1951). “If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The Initial Pleading Lacks Federal Question
U.S.C. § 1441 allows a defendant to remove an action to
federal district court if the court would have had original
jurisdiction over the claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
federal courts have original jurisdiction over “civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim
arises under federal law “only when a federal question
is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly
pleaded complaint.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.,
410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff's
complaint is a state law claim for foreclosure. Mot. Remand
 at 2. Defendant attempts to declare federal question
jurisdiction by claiming that he is a surety for the
non-charitable irrevocable trust titled “CARL JAMES
TRUJILLO, ” and that he is acting as an
“intervenor/interpleader” in the foreclosure
case. Intervenor's Notice of Removal to Fed. Jurisdiction
(“Notice of Removal”)  at 1.
asserts federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335.
Defendant claims he is an intervenor compelled to answer as a
surety on behalf of Defendant and further attempts to
interplead all claims. Notice of Removal  at 3. Defendant
has not provided any evidence that he is functioning as a
trust, an intervenor, nor made clear what would be
interpleaded in this case. As Defendant bears the ...