Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01562-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

JOLYNN DURAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN LEPORE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01562-NONE-EPG

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

(Doc. No. 1)

The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a magistrate judge for the 

purposes of findings and recommendations in this case.

On November 5, 2020, defendant1Jolynn Duran filed a pro se Notice of Removal with 

this court, seeking to remove an action from the Superior Court for the County of Merced. (Doc. 

No. 1.) For the following reasons, the court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Merced

County Superior Court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action to federal court if the 

district court has original jurisdiction. Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th 

Cir. 2009). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 

 

1 Though Jolynn Duran has named herself as plaintiff, that is incorrect. In seeking to remove a 

state court action in which she is named as defendant, Duran remains the named defendant in the 

federal court action. The court will refer to Duran as “defendant,” notwithstanding the current 

captioning of the case.

Case 1:20-cv-01562-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 4
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

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Federal courts are courts of 

limited jurisdiction and can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 

Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship, a federal 

question, or where the United States is a party. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 

375 (1994); Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. 

California, 463 U.S. 1, 8 (1983); 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never 

waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland, 

Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In determining the presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction in removal cases, 

the “well-pleaded complaint rule” applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 

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

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The removal statute is strictly construed 

in favor of remand and against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 

(9th Cir. 2005). Among other things, this means that the defendant always has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 

(9th Cir. 2004). 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). 

Here, defendant is unable to establish federal question jurisdiction because the complaint 

filed in the state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer based on California 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province 

of the state courts. See PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ahluwalia, No. C 15-01264 WHA, 2015 WL 

3866892, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (collecting cases). Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint 

avoids federal question jurisdiction. A defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction 

by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 

(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 statelaw 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.”).

Case 1:20-cv-01562-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The next possible basis for this court’s jurisdiction is diversity. District courts have 

diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs,” and the action is between “(1) citizens of 

different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of 

different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a 

foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see 

also Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Defendant cannot establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in this case. The complaint 

filed in the underlying unlawful detainer action unequivocally states that the amount in 

controversy is less than $10,000. When a state court complaint affirmatively alleges that the 

amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the party seeking removal must

prove with “legal certainty” that the jurisdictional amount is met. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods 

Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Glassical Creations, Inc. v. Canter, No. CV 

15-04358 MMM PJWX, 2015 WL 4127912, at *4 & n. 10 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015). Defendant’s

notice of removal does not provide any basis for a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds 

the $75,000 threshold. The amount in controversy is determined without regard to any setoff or 

counterclaim to which defendant may be entitled. Mesa Indus., Inc. v. Eaglebrook Products, Inc., 

980 F. Supp. 323, 326 (D. Ariz. 1997). Thus, the amount in controversy is insufficient to provide 

this court with diversity jurisdiction.

Moreover, in removal cases where the purported basis of jurisdiction is diversity 

jurisdiction, removal is not permitted where a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the 

plaintiff originally brought the action (even if the opposing parties are citizens of different states).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, defendant has only provided a post office box in Merced, 

California, for an address and has not provided any information on the citizenship of defendants. 

She does not provide any alternative basis for a finding of diversity of citizenship. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:20-cv-01562-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the court REMANDS this case to the Merced County Superior Court for all 

future proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01562-DAD-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 4