Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01788/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01788-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROL J. MORRETT, 

Plaintiff, 

WENDY L. BROWN, DOES 1 to 4, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01788-MCE-CKD-PS

ORDER 

On July 29, 2016, Defendant WENDY L. BROWN (“Defendant”), proceeding in 

pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff CAROL 

J. MORRETT (“Plaintiff”) from the Stanislaus Superior Court.1

 ECF No. 1. This Court 

has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly 

construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 

1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if 

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendant has failed to meet 

that burden. 

 1

 Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 

a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01788-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. However, a review of the 

Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, she alleges 

only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 

the 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) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, 

Defendant argues that she has defenses available under federal law. “A case may not 

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is 

the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of 

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. 

Accordingly: 

1. The action is REMANDED to the Stanislaus County Superior Court. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. 2030799) in the proof of service. 

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED as 

moot. 

Case 2:16-cv-01788-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates. 

5. The Clerk of Court is ordered not to open another case removing the following 

unlawful detainer action: No. 2030799. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 2, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01788-MCE-CKD Document 4 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 3