Opinion
23-cv-02029-TSH
04-27-2023
MARY PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. FLOYD RUDD, Defendant.
ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO REASSIGN CASE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS S. HIXSON, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 26, 2023, Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action from Contra Costa County Superior Court. However, as it appears that jurisdiction is lacking, this case should be remanded to state court. As Defendant did not yet consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Court requests the Clerk of Court reassign this case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
The undersigned has prepared a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) because the decision to remand is a “dispositive” matter that falls outside the scope of a magistrate judge's authority absence consent of all parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because a 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) remand order is dispositive of all federal proceedings in a case, we hold that a motion to remand is properly characterized as a dispositive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), meaning that a remand order cannot be issued by a magistrate judge.”).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court only if original jurisdiction would have existed at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal question jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish “either that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that (2) plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Id.; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.
Alternatively, a federal court has diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978).
The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor of remand. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. A district court may remand a case to state court sua sponte if it determines that jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).
III. DISCUSSION
Here, the face of the complaint, which asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer, does not provide any ground for removal. First, there is no federal question jurisdiction as “[a]n unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.” Snavely v. Johnson, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (citations omitted); Petaluma Theatre Square, LLC v. Hirsch, 2019 WL 1171162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1168538 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) (“Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.”) (collecting cases).
Second, as a California citizen, see ECF No. 1, Defendant cannot remove this case based on diversity jurisdiction because the forum defendant rule applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (An action may not be removed on the basis of diversity “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear that the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.”). Moreover, an unlawful detainer is a limited civil action “where the whole amount of damages claimed is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 86. “[T]he amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in controversy.” Snavely, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2. Thus, “even where an unlawful detainer action involves foreclosure on a mortgage that exceeds $75,000, the amount of the mortgage does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” Id. (citing Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. v. Heredia, 2012 WL 4747157, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012).
Finally, as noted above, an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”) (citation omitted). Thus, any anticipated defense Defendant may bring is not a valid ground for removal. See, e.g., Saso v. Genho, 2021 WL 1530215, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021) (remanding unlawful detainer action where defendant invoked the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)); Barrie v. Fiorentino, 2020 WL 8513084, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) (remanding unlawful detainer action where defendants invoked the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); Nguyen v. Bui, 2012 WL 762156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (affirmative defenses based upon Federal Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction upon state unlawful detainer claim); Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (affirmative defense based upon Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not confer federal jurisdiction over unlawful detainer claim).
IV. CONCLUSION
As jurisdiction appears to be lacking, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS this case be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall reassign this case to a district court judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.