Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00755/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00755-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

(1:1 ...... 

E 11 

t:..S 

Q =:.:::: (1:1 12 

uu 

~<+-< 

(.J 0 13 ......... 

a. (.) ~ ...... fiJ 1-< 14 ......... 

~.~ 

fiJQ 

~ E 15 ~ II) 

~...s::: 

oot:: 16 ~ 0 

~z 

= 17 II) :;;;J,.S 1-< 

0 18 ~ 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NA VJOT AHLUWALIA, 

______________________________ Defendant. / 

J6 

No. C -.14-0755 EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DEFENDANT'S NOTICE 

OF REMOVAL 

On February 18,2015, Defendant Navjot Ahluwalia filed a Notice ofRemoval ofthe 

unlawful detainer case filed by Plaintiff against Defendant in Contra Costa County Superior Court on 

April 11, 2014. As the parties have not yet consented to this Court's jurisdiction, the Court issues 

this Report and Recommendation and will reassign this case to a district judge. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court recommends remanding this matter to state court. Remarkably, this is the 

fourth time that Defendant has improperly removed the same underlying unlawful detainer complaint 

to this Court. See generally PNC Bank National Association v. Ahluwalia; 14-cv-3086-MMC; PNC 

Bank National Association v. Ahluwalia, 14-cv-4693-JST; PNC Bank National Association v. 

Ahluwalia, 14-cv-5672-WHA. Defendant is cautioned that any further attempts to improperly 

remove this complaint without a proper basis in law may result in sanctions against him, including 

but not limited to being deemed a vexatious litigant. 

"Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a 

State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 

removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district 

and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). "If at any 

time before final judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 

i 

I 

l 

Case 4:15-cv-00755-YGR Document 3 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 3
1 shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

2 The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[ s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." 

3 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Thus, "[fJederal 

4 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. 

5 (citation omitted). "The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 

6 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id.; see also Abrego v. Dow Chemical 

7 Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). Removal jurisdiction may be based on diversity of 

8 citizenship or on the existence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Whether removal 

9 jurisdiction exists must be determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint. Merrell Dow 

10 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). 

11 Defendant argues that removal is proper based on diversity jurisdiction. Pursuant to 

12 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and "the matter 

13 in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs." The notice of 

14 removal, however, states that Plaintiff is a California corporation and that Defendant is a resident of 

15 California. Therefore, the parties are not diverse. Further, the face of the complaint, which states 

16 that the amount demanded in this limited civil case does not exceed $10,000, shows that the 

17 jurisdictional minimum has not been met. Therefore, the case was not removable as a diversity 

18 action and remand is appropriate. 

19 Although Defendant did not base removal on federal question jurisdiction, the Court notes 

20 that federal question jurisdiction does not exist. Where a civil action over which the federal courts 

21 have original jurisdiction is brought in state court, the defendant may remove the action to federal 

22 district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only 

23 where a federal question appears on the face of the properly pleaded complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. 

24 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,392 (1987); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 

25 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002) ("The well-pleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case 

26 "arises under" federal law for purposes of§ 1331."); see also Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 

27 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 

28 governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 

2 

f 

Case 4:15-cv-00755-YGR Document 3 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 3
ro ...... 

E 

1:<-2 

=:..:::::: = ro uu 

.... ~ (j 0 .......... 

a.. (.) .......... 

~ 1-< .......... 

~ .~ 

~o 

~ E co= Q) 

.... ...s::: 

oot:: 

"C 0 

~z 

= Q) j;;;;).;:l 1-< 

0 

~ 

1 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint."). 

2 Here, the face of the complaint, which asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer, does 

3 not provide any basis for removal. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

4 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaint, on its face, does not arise under federal law. 

5 Accordingly, the Court recommends remanding this case once again to the Contra Costa 

6 County Superior Court. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this 

7 recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 

8 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the 

9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

10 

11 Dated: February ~2015 ~J\0D~ EUZABI)Jn:rD. LAPORT 

12 United States Magistrate Judge 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

/ 

1 

Case 4:15-cv-00755-YGR Document 3 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3