Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01596/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01596-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PATRICIA BOTTOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CATHERINE FORBES, dba CATHERINE’S

GOURMET TO GO, et al.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-1596 EMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND AND

AWARDING COSTS AND EXPENSES

(Docket No. 12)

Plaintiff Patricia Bottom filed this action for unlawful detainer against Defendants Catherine

and Ronald Forbes in California State Court. See Docket No. 1 (Notice of Removal), Ex. A

(Complaint for Unlawful Detainer). According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay rent to

their landlord (Plaintiff) for the commercial property located at 1801 14th Avenue, Oakland,

California, 94606. See id. Plaintiff’s complaint contained no other causes of action.

On April 7, 2015, Defendants (acting pro se) removed the action to this Court, claiming that

removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), which generally provides that this Court has

original jurisdiction over cases and controversies where the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum

or value of $75,000” and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also

RCM International, LLC v. Alpental Energy Partners, LLC, No. 14-cv-4788 SC, 2014 WL 6844944

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) (discussing in great detail the law of removal for diversity purposes). The

Defendants also seemed to suggest that jurisdiction was proper because Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer

action presents a question of Federal law. See Notice of Removal at 1. 

Case 3:15-cv-01596-EMC Document 13 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to Superior Court and its

request for an award of fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), which provides that the

court may order a party to pay “just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as

the result of the [improper] removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons explained below, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for remand, REMANDS this case to Superior Court, and

ORDERS Defendants to pay Plaintiff the “just costs” she incurred in litigating her meritorious

motion for remand.

Defendants first suggested that removal is proper under section 1332--the diversity of

citizenship provision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (permitting removal based on diversity of

citizenship). Defendants are mistaken in at least two fundamental ways. First, Defendants admit in

their notice of removal that they are citizens of the State of California, and reside in Alameda

County. Notice of Removal at 2. Thus, even if Plaintiff was not a citizen of California (i.e., of

diverse citizenship from Defendants) as Defendants contend in their notice of removal, removal is

improper here because an action “may not be removed [based on diversity of citizenship] if any of

the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such

action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Put simply, where a non-citizen sues a citizen in the

citizen’s home state, the citizen defendant may not remove the case to Federal court for reasons of

diversity of citizenship. Here, Defendants were sued in California, the State where they reside. 

Thus, they could not remove the action pursuant to section 1441. 

Additionally, even if this first defect were not present, this case is also not removable

pursuant to sections 1332 and 1441(b) because the amount in controversy requirement is plainly not

met. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint indicates that the amount of unpaid rent due at the time

of its filing was $3,700, and that the daily rent due was $98.63. Complaint at 3. Put simply, there is

no evidence that more than $75,000 is in controversy in this action.

Defendants’ final contention in support of removal is the suggestion that Plaintiff’s unlawful

detainer lawsuit somehow involves or invokes federal law. This argument is foreclosed by the

“well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction must be apparent on the face

of the plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1987). Because

Case 3:15-cv-01596-EMC Document 13 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 plaintiff is the “master of the complaint,” a plaintiff who chooses not to bring federal claims may

avoid federal jurisdiction and “have the cause heard in state court.” Id. Here, the Plaintiff’s

complaint clearly does not contain any federal law cause of action, either express or implied, and so

this Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. This case was not properly removed, and thus

the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

The Court also grants Plaintiff’s request for an award of $1,620, which is equal to the amount

of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff spent prosecuting its motion to remand. While the award of such fees is

within the Court’s discretion, a court abuses its discretion in refusing to award fees where the

defendant’s argument for removal was devoid of any objectively reasonable basis. See Martin v.

Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005); see also Dead Kennedys v. Biafra, 46 F. Supp. 2d

1028. Here, that standard is clearly met. Defendants have presented no argument that would

suggest that their request for removal here was even remotely colorable: In fact, Defendant failed to

even file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand. In any event, Defendant’s notice of removal

was obviously deficient. Thus, the Court finds an award of attorneys’ fees to be proper here, and

awards Plaintiff $1,620.00.

This order disposes of Docket No. 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01596-EMC Document 13 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3