Opinion
22-cv-08948-AGT
01-27-2023
LYDIA CHINGBONG BARBER, Plaintiff, v. WAYNENARD J. AITEMON, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge
This case should be remanded to state court. Defendant removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction, see dkt. 1-1 ¶ 4, but the only claim is a state-law claim for unlawful detainer, see Dkt. 5-2. “Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law ....” Petaluma Theatre Square, LLC v. Hirsch, No. 19-CV-00026-JST (LB), 2019 WL 1171162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2019), adopted, 2019 WL 1168538 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019).
In his notice of removal, defendant invokes two federal laws, implicitly suggesting that these laws provide him with a viable federal defense. See Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 5 (referring to the FDCPA and FCRA). A federal defense doesn't provide this Court with jurisdiction. See City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903-04 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Because federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff's claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims, a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense ....”) (simplified). On the civil cover sheet filed with his notice of removal, defendant also checked a box indicating that there is a “U.S. Government Defendant.” Dkt. 1-2 at 1. There's not.
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. The undersigned requests that the Clerk of the Court reassign this case to a district judge and recommends that the district judge grant plaintiff's motion to remand (dkt. 5) and remand the case to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The undersigned also recommends that the district judge decline to award attorney's fees and costs to plaintiff. See id. at 3-4 (requesting fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). Defendant appeared pro se, and “courts in this district recognize the lack of legal assistance to be significant, and frequently decline to award fees and costs against pro se litigants under § 1447(c).” Saso v. Genho, No. 21-CV-02030-BLF, 2021 WL 1530215, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021) (simplified).
Any party may object to this report and recommendation but must do so within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.