Opinion
23-cv-04329-LJC
09-08-2023
TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DARRYL LAURINDA JONES, Defendant.
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND
RE: ECF NOS. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
LISA J. CISNEROS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Darryl Laurinda Jones removed this unlawful detainer action to this Court from San Francisco County Superior Court on August 22, 2023. ECF No. 1. Defendant alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction arising under thirty-two different federal laws, including the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Id. at 2-3. Defendant is pro se and has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 2. Defendant has also filed two other applications and a motion requesting injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation's (TNDC) eviction proceedings against him. ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7. TNDC has not entered an appearance in this matter.
Unless specified otherwise, the Court refers to the PDF page number generated by the Court's efiling system.
The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction. Nor is there diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. Thus, remand to state court is appropriate. Because not all parties have appeared and consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case must be reassigned. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). The undersigned directs the Clerk of the Court to reassign the case to a district judge and recommends that the newly assigned judge remand the case. The undersigned further recommends that Defendant's IFP application be denied as moot, and that the two pending applications and the motion requesting injunctive relief be terminated as moot without prejudice to being raised again in state court, if appropriate.
I. BACKGROUND
TNDC filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant, its tenant, in November 2018. ECF No. 1-1 at 5-13. This is not the first time that Defendant has removed the case to this Court. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal back on July 5, 2023. See TNDC v. Jones, Case No. 3:23-cv-03369-CRB, ECF No. 1. The case was remanded back to state court on August 3, 2023, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id., ECF No. 12.
II. DISCUSSION
Subject to certain requirements and limitations, a defendant generally may remove a case from state court to federal court where the case presents either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(c). The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for the federal court's jurisdiction. Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and must remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 881 F.3d 786, 790 (9th Cir. 2018)
For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). There is federal question jurisdiction if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the plaintiff's complaint at the time of removal for federal question jurisdiction to exist. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). Thus, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” See, e.g., Dahl v. Rosenfeld, 316 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); see also Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679, 688 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[A] federal defense is not a sufficient basis to find embedded federal question jurisdiction.”) Nor can a case be removed because the defendant asserts a federal counterclaim. See, e.g., Barrie v. Fiorentino, No. 20-cv-07347-LHK, 2020 WL 8513084, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020).
Here, the face of the Complaint presents only TNDC's state law claim for unlawful detainer. ECF No. 1-1 at 5-13. Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law. See, e.g., Barrie, 2020 WL 8513084, at *2-3 (remanding unlawful detainer action because complaint did not plead claims arising under federal law); Park Regency, LLC v. Pitts, No. 23-CV-01144-JD, 2023 WL 3391960, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2023) (same); Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (same). To the extent Defendant is asserting any federal defenses or counterclaims, that does not provide a basis for removal. See Barrie, 2020 WL 8513084, at *2.
There is also no diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy is less than $25,000. ECF No. 1-1 at 5; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schoux, No. 14-CV-02026-NJV, 2014 WL 12607803, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014) (“In unlawful detainer actions, the amount of damages sought in the complaint . . . determines the amount in controversy[.]”) (citation omitted).
As Defendant should be aware aware, this unlawful detainer action was remanded for the exact same reasons by the Court earlier this year. See TNDC v. Jones, Case No. 3:23-cv-03369-CRB, ECF No. 8; ECF No. 12 (“[T]he complaint only involves a state law claim for unlawful detainer, and a defendant cannot remove a case on the basis of a federal defense.”) Nothing changed in terms of the particulars of the case when Defendant filed the present Notice of Removal. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and remand is appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
The undersigned directs the Clerk of the Court to reassign the case to a district judge. The undersigned recommends that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the San Francisco County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The undersigned further recommends that the pending IFP application be denied as moot, and that the two applications and the motion requesting injunctive relief be terminated as moot without prejudice to being raised again in state court, if appropriate.
Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.