Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06129/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06129-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

HVB INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TYRONE MONROE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-06129-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Tyrone Monroe and Christine Monroe (“Defendants”) removed the instant 

unlawful detainer action originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by Plaintiff HVB 

Investments, Inc. and Jagroop Bhandal (“Plaintiffs”). Dkt. No. 1. According to the state court 

Complaint, Plaintiffs purchased certain real property located in San Jose, California, previously 

owned by Defendants at a trustee’s sale. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege, however, that Defendants are 

still in possession of the property and have failed to vacate after being notified. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10. 

As is its obligation, the court has reviewed this action to determine whether federal subject 

matter jurisdiction exists. See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). It 

does not. Accordingly, this action will be remanded to the state court from which it originated.

II. DISCUSSION

Removal jurisdiction is a creation of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely 

from the statutory authorization of Congress.”). Only those state court actions that could have 

been originally filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise 

Case 5:16-cv-06129-EJD Document 17 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06129-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.”);

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally 

could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by defendant.”). 

Accordingly, the removal statute provides two basic ways in which a state court action may be 

removed to federal court: (1) the case presents a federal question, or (2) the case is between 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 

(b).

The removing defendant must show the basis for federal jurisdiction. Nishimoto v. 

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction statutes 

are strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 

(1941).

The Notice of Removal reveals that Defendants removed this action on the basis of federal 

question jurisdiction. When removal is based on the presence of a federal question, the court 

looks to the face of a well-pleaded complaint to determine whether a cause of action is created by 

federal law or whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a 

substantial question of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 

808 (1988) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-

28 (1983)). “[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint that there is 

a federal question.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). The complaint as it 

existed at time of removal dictates whether removal jurisdiction is proper. Libhart, 592 F.2d at 

1065.

Here, the original state-court complaint asserts only one cause of action for unlawful 

detainer, which does not arise under federal law and cannot support federal question jurisdiction. 

See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. C 11-00451 WHA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

44818, at *1, 2011 WL 1465678 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. C 

11-1894 PJH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53643, at *2, 2011 WL 1754053 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); 

Case 5:16-cv-06129-EJD Document 17 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:16-cv-06129-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130517, at 

*2, 2010 WL 4916578 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). That being the case, the court cannot find that a 

federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Any actual or anticipated cross-claims and 

counterclaims are irrelevant to this analysis since those claims are not contained in the original 

complaint. See Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (holding jurisdiction must 

appear on the face of the complaint); see also Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042-

43 (2009) (holding jurisdiction cannot rest on actual or anticipated defense). 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action. Accordingly, the Clerk shall remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court 

and close the file.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) and all other pending 

matters are DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06129-EJD Document 17 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 3