Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05723/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05723-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROTONDA R. LLOPIS, GERALD LLOPIS, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05723-JSC 

SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL

FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING 

WHETHER CASES ARE RELATED AND 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND

Defendant Rotonda R. Llopis removed this state law unlawful detainer action from the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Solano on December 14, 2015. In accordance with 

Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the above captioned case is referred to the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez 

Rogers to determine whether it is related to U.S. Bank National Association v. Llopis et al, No. 15-

5182 YGR, a removal of the same underlying unlawful detainer action which was remanded to the 

Solano County Superior Court on December 2, 2015. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

Plaintiff brought this state-law unlawful detainer action against Defendants in the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Solano seeking to evict Defendants from real property 

located in Vacaville. Defendant Rotonda Llopis, representing herself, subsequently removed the 

case to federal court. Because Plaintiff previously removed this same unlawful detainer action and 

it was remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its renewed removal is improper and the 

Court RECOMMENDS that it again be REMANDED to the Solano County Superior Court.

“Once a federal court has remanded an unlawful detainer case, a party is not entitled to

file a second notice of removal on the same grounds.” PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ahluwalia, No. C 

Case 4:15-cv-05723-YGR Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

15-01264 WHA, 2015 WL 3866892, at *2 n.3 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015). Under existing laws, a 

party is not entitled “to file a second [notice of removal] upon the same grounds, where, upon the 

first removal by the same party, the federal court declined to proceed and remanded the suit, 

because of his failure to [comply with the procedural requirements for removal].” St. Paul & C. 

Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883). However, if the removing party advances a 

different theory for removal based on newly discovered facts or a change in relevant law, removal 

may be appropriate. Kirkbride v. Continental Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that 

a defendant who fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings may file a removal petition 

when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal). Here, 

Llopis’s complaint is identical to the complaint she filed in U.S. Bank National Association v. 

Llopis et al, No. 15-5182 YGR, which was remanded to the Solano County Superior Court on 

December 2, 2015. Accordingly, the ban on successive removals applies, and this action should 

be remanded.

Even if this removal was not an improper successive removal, it would be barred for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal 

court so long as the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject 

matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded 

complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—“an actual or anticipated defense” 

does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The 

defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper” and the 

“removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of 

Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is 

removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has 

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 

2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court “if at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Case 4:15-cv-05723-YGR Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 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

Here, the original complaint asserts only one cause of action for unlawful detainer, which 

does not arise under federal law and cannot support federal-question jurisdiction. See Fed. Nat’l 

Mortgage Ass’n v. Martinez, No. 15-CV-04827, 2015 WL 7352186, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 

2015) (holding that “[u]nlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, 

the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction”); Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Lopez, No. 11-

00451 WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011) (holding removal was 

improper where defendant asserted a federal question arising from an unlawful detainer action); 

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Rosario, No. 11-1894 PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 

9, 2011) (finding no federal question pled in an unlawful detainer action). Removal is also 

improper because Llopis —a California resident—is precluded from removing an action where 

she is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be REMANDED to the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Solano and that Defendants be warned against any further 

removals of this complaint. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05723-YGR Document 6 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3