Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05503/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05503-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY 

CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY-MERRITT: WILSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05503-BLF 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND

REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN 

BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

[Re: ECF 15, 20]

On October 17, 2016, Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt: Wilson filed an objection to the Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remanding this forcible 

entry and forcible detainer action. See ECF 15, 20. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly 

considered Judge Lloyd’s R&R and the arguments in Wilson’s objection. Finding the R&R 

correct, well reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in every respect.

Defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter 

jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Lloyd’s R&R, Wilson raises several objections based on 

affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may allege under federal law, including claims under 

42 U.S.C. §1983, claims pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and a claim that Plaintiffs 

violated the automatic stay in federal bankruptcy cases. ECF 20, at 6, 25–26. However, “[f]ederal 

jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal 

jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 

49, 60 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Wilson also claims that the action involves a federal 

question because the action arises out of a federal land patent. ECF 20, at 12. “Federal land 

patents . . . [however,] do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction.” Virgin v. Cty. Of 

San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 

Case 5:16-cv-05503-BLF Document 21 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

569–70 (1912)). Wilson further claims that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the 

“property has a value . . . well over $1,000,000.00.” ECF 20, at 24. However, as Judge Lloyd 

stated, “forcible entry and forcible detainer actions do not involve the right to title to the property. 

So, the fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant.” ECF 15, at 2 

(citations omitted). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Accordingly, the above-titled forcible entry and forcible detainer action is REMANDED to 

the San Benito County Superior Court.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court notes that Wilson also requested the Court to join this action to Wilson v. Tobias, No. 

16-cv-5419-DMR (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 22, 2016). ECF 20, at 29. The Court construes this 

request as an improper motion to relate the cases pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12. Pursuant to Civil 

L.R. 3-12(b), a party seeking to relate an action “must promptly file in the lowest-numbered case 

an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related.” Regardless, Wilson’s 

request is moot given this order remanding the action to state court.

Case 5:16-cv-05503-BLF Document 21 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2