Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02726/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02726-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AISHA R. BARI-SHARIFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVELYN PETERS,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-JMA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND

[ECF No. 3]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand the case back to state

court. Pl. Mot., ECF No. 3. Having reviewed Defendant’s notice of removal, the Court

finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and therefore

GRANTS the motion to remand.

DISCUSSION

Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 etseq. A state court action

can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d

1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the basis of federal

question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates the

3:15-cv-02726-GPC-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-JMA Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 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

cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the

resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v.

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983).

Alternatively, a federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving

citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332.

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the

‘well-pleaded complaintrule,’which providesthatfederal jurisdiction exists onlywhen

a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. A review of the state court complaint in this case

shows that Plaintiff alleges an unlawful detainer claim under California state law. 

Compl., ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiff also alleges that the amount demanded does not exceed

$10,000. Id.

“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). “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). 

In the notice of removal, Defendant alleges that the Court has federal question

jurisdiction over the case. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Defendant contends that

there is a federal question surrounding Plaintiff’s “refus[al] to permit, reasonable

modification of the premises of the premises necessary to afford full enjoyment of the

premises to Defendant [sic] roommate and co-tenant who is physically handicapped”

as well as with the “building NOT being up to code” with respect to the width of the

doors in violation of the Fair Housing Act and various federal statutes. Id. at 2. 

Defendant’s alleged federal “claims” are actually defenses and potential

counterclaims against Plaintiff. However, neither defenses nor counterclaims are

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff's

2 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-JMA Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 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

complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question

jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill

Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“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.”). As such, Defendant’s

allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Nor is there diversity jurisdiction. Not only does Defendant not plead diversity

of citizenship, but also, in unlawful detainer actions, the amount of damages sought in

the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in

controversy. Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977) (quoting

Cheney v. Trauzettel, 9 Cal. 2d 158, 159 (1937)). Here, these damages are less than

$75,000.

Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 3, is

GRANTED. The Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State of

California for San Diego County. The hearing set for February 12, 2016, is

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-02726-GPC-JMA Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3