Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06783/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06783-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

E-filed 11/29/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUKE PARTNERS II, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO L. MOSQUEDA,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-06783-HRL 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE: REMAND TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Antonio Mosqueda removed this unlawful detainer action from the Monterey County 

Superior Court. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this matter be 

remanded to the state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject 

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly 

construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is 

proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus 

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be 

remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before the final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendant fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “wellCase 5:16-cv-06783-EJD Document 4 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 3
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

pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not 

satisfy this requirement. Id.

Though the defendant did not attach full copy of the state court complaint to his notice of 

removal, none of the papers he submitted to this court (including the notice of removal, the civil 

cover sheet from the state court, and defendant’s demurrer in state court) suggest that the state 

court complaint included a federal claim. These documents all indicate that the complaint was an 

unlawful detainer action. (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 1; id. at Exs. B, C). Additionally, it is defendant’s 

burden to show that removal is proper, and none of defendant’s assertions constitute such a 

showing. Defendant asserts that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendant’s 

demurrer, a pleading, depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties 

under federal law.” (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 10). In particular, defendant asserts that plaintiffs lacked 

standing. (Id. at ¶ 8). However, allegations in a removal notice or demurrer cannot provide this 

court with federal question jurisdiction. Finally, though the defendant states that he “filed a 

Complaint for Lack of Standing to Foreclose base[d] on various counts of fraud, Void Assignment

of Deed of Trust Based [on] Violation of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,” defendant did 

not (and cannot, if he is the plaintiff who filed it) remove this complaint, but instead removed a 

complaint filed against him. If the complaint to which defendant refers was a counterclaim, there 

is no federal question jurisdiction due to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

The court also does not find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts 

have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. Defendant fails to identify the citizenship of each party. But this is of no import, since 

the civil cover sheet for the complaint indicates that the amount in controversy does not exceed 

$25,000. Moreover, unlawful detainer actions involve the right to possession alone, not title to the 

property. So, the fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. 

MOAB Investment Group, LLC v. Moreno, No. C14-0092EMC, 2014 WL 523092 at *1 (N.D. 

Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell Real Estate Investment LLC v. Bracho, No. C12-02774RMW, 2012 

Case 5:16-cv-06783-EJD Document 4 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

WL 2906762 at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2012).

There being no basis for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action, the 

removal of this case was improper. Defendant is advised that future attempts to remove this 

matter may result in sanctions.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Monterey County Superior 

Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 

fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/29/2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06783-EJD Document 4 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3