Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02705/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02705-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

JP MORGAN CHASE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RENFRO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02705-BLF 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This unlawful detainer action was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for 

the County of Santa Cruz on February 20, 2015 as Case No. CV181116. This is now the second 

time that defendant David Renfro, who is represented by counsel, has removed the action to 

federal court. In the first removal, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd determined that there was 

no basis for federal jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action and recommended remand. 

Report and Recommendation, No. 5:15-cv-01730-BLF, ECF 10 (“R&R”). This Court adopted the 

recommendation in its entirety and ordered remand on May 5, 2015. Order Adopting Report and 

Recommendation, No. 5:15-cv-01730-BLF, ECF 15 (“Order Adopting R&R”).

In this second removal, it is unclear what circumstances have changed so as to warrant 

fresh consideration of the basis for federal jurisdiction. For one, the underlying complaint in this 

action is still the one filed on February 20, 2015 and, as such, Defendant’s June 17, 2015 removal 

is not timely. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). More problematically, Defendant’s notice of removal in 

the present case is nearly identical to the one that he filed in the first removal. Compare Notice of 

Removal, No. 5:15-cv-01730-BLF, ECF 1 with Notice of Removal, No. 15-cv-02705-BLF, ECF 

1. To the extent Defendant continues to assert that there is federal jurisdiction on the basis of 

remedies that he seeks under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Court reiterates its 

Case 5:15-cv-02705-BLF Document 11 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

conclusion that “because the unlawful detainer complaint is based solely on state law, no federal 

question jurisdiction lies regardless of any defenses or counterclaims Renfro might assert under 

the ADA.” Order Adopting R&R at 1. To the extent Defendant is here attempting to establish a 

factual basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court has also rejected that 

basis for jurisdiction. See id. at 2; see Notice of Removal ¶¶ 2, 6. As Judge Lloyd explained in his 

Report and Recommendation, the underlying complaint clearly indicates that the amount in 

controversy does not exceed $10,000. R&R at 3. Moreover, it is well established that because 

unlawful detainer actions involve the right to possession alone, the amount in controversy is not 

the value of the property but rather the value of possession. Id.; MOAB Inv. Grp. LLC v. Moreno, 

No. C-14-0092 EMC, 2014 WL 523092, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2014). As such, that the value of 

the subject property may exceed $75,000 is irrelevant and Defendant has failed to demonstrate the 

amount in controversy required for federal diversity jurisdiction.1 The Court must accordingly 

order remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over this action.2

Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation in the first removal case already notified 

Defendant that “future attempts to remove this matter may result in sanctions.” R&R at 3. Lest it 

was unclear before, the Court hereby adopts and reiterates that admonishment: future attempts to 

remove this matter may result in sanctions.

The Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to remand this action to state court and 

close the case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court moreover notes that Defendant, a citizen of California, violated the forum defendant 

rule by removing to district court in California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

2 Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. ECF 5.

Case 5:15-cv-02705-BLF Document 11 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2