Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02106/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02106-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES BAILEY, DOES 1 to 10, 

Inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-02106-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

On October 8, 2015, defendant, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer 

action from Shasta County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. As explained below, the court 

REMANDS the case to the Shasta County Superior Court. 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time before 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-02106-KJM-CMK Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Shasta County Superior 

Court. The form complaint filed in the state court is for unlawful detainer only. ECF No. 1. 

Defendant grounds the removal on this court’s federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “[this] is 

a civil action arising under federal law and in which a federal statute is drawn in controversy” 

because the “[p]laintiff’s claim is based upon a notice which expressly references and 

incorporates” a federal statute. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 7. Defendant further argues that plaintiff did not 

give the defendant the ninety (90) day notice period provided by the federal statute. Id. ¶ 7. 

Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may, as here, “avoid federal 

jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 

(9th Cir. 2005). Defendant’s assertion is best characterized as a defense or a potential 

counterclaim, neither of which can be considered in evaluating whether federal question 

jurisdiction exists. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction 

cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles, 410 F.3d at 1075 (“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.”); Metro Ford 

Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,145 F.3d 320, 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l 

Life Ins Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Because plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not provide a basis for 

federal question jurisdiction, and defendant’s counterclaim cannot provide the basis for removal 

jurisdiction here, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s single statelaw claim for unlawful detainer. This case is REMANDED to Shasta County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 16, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-02106-KJM-CMK Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2