Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05503/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05503-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E-filed 10/14/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY 

CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY-MERRITT WILSON,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-05503-HRL 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE: REMAND TO STATE COURT

Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt Wilson (“Defendant”) removed this forcible entry and forcible 

detainer action from San Benito County Superior Court. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the 

defendant broke into real property which plaintiff owns pursuant to a recent trustee sale and 

deprived plaintiff of possession. Dkt. No. 14. Defendant claims the property as his own and 

asserts that the proceedings related to his dispossession were defective. Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11.

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this matter be remanded to the 

state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly 

construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is 

proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus 

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be 

remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before the final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Case 5:16-cv-05503-BLF Document 15 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendant fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not 

satisfy this requirement. Id. Defendant’s removal notice alleges federal question jurisdiction 

based on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty of Guadalupe 

Hidalgo, and various United States statutes. (Dkt. No. 1). However, allegations in a removal 

notice or in a response to the complaint cannot provide this court with federal question 

jurisdiction.1 Plaintiff’s complaint presents a claim arising only under state law. It does not allege 

any federal claims whatsoever. 

Nor does this court find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have 

jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. Defendant fails to identify the citizenship of each party. But this is of no import, since 

the complaint indicates that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, 

forcible entry and forcible detainer actions do not involve the right to title to the property. 

Lasserot v. Gamble, 46 P. 917, 919 (Cal. 1896); Jordan v. Talbot, 55 Cal. 2d 597, 603-04 (1961). 

So, the fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. MOAB 

Investment Group, LLC v. Moreno, No. C14-0092EMC, 2014 WL 523092 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 

6, 2014); Maxwell Real Estate Investment LLC v. Bracho, No. C12-02774RMW, 2012 WL 

2906762 at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2012).

There being no basis for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s forcible entry and forcible 

detainer action, the removal of this case was improper.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

 

1 Defendant has also filed additional challenges and counterclaims after filing the notice of 

removal, but none of these claims appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Case 5:16-cv-05503-BLF Document 15 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the San Benito County 

Superior Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/14/2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05503-BLF Document 15 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3