Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01730/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01730-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RENFRO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01730-BLF 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND 

REMANDING CASE TO STATE 

COURT

[RE: ECF 10]

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd’s April 17, 2015 Report and 

Recommendation that this unlawful detainer action be remanded to the Santa Cruz County 

Superior Court. R&R, ECF 10. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed 

and the deadline to object has elapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (deadline for objections is 

fourteen days after being served with report and recommendation).

The Report and Recommendation is well-founded in fact and law. Defendant David 

Renfro (“Renfro”) removed this unlawful detainer action on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that he (Renfro) “seeks remedies under, Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Notice of Removal ¶ 4, ECF 1. As noted by Judge Lloyd, 

however, federal question jurisdiction lies only when the plaintiff’s complaint discloses a federal 

claim. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). “Federal jurisdiction cannot be 

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.” Id. “Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an 

actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Id. Judge Lloyd concluded correctly that because the 

unlawful detainer complaint is based solely on state law, no federal question jurisdiction lies 

regardless of any defenses or counterclaims Renfro might assert under the ADA.

Case 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Although the Notice of Removal does not assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, Judge Lloyd in an excess of caution observed that Renfro has indicated that he and Plaintiff 

are citizens of different states. However, Judge Lloyd concluded correctly that no diversity 

jurisdiction lies because Renfro has neither identified the citizenship of each party nor established 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (establishing requirements 

for diversity jurisdiction). 

After Judge Lloyd filed his Report and Recommendation, Renfro filed a “Corrected Notice 

of Removal.” Corrected Notice of Removal, ECF 14. The Corrected Notice of Removal does not 

cure the defects in the original Notice of Removal that are addressed by Judge Lloyd’s Report and 

Recommendation.

Accordingly, Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety, and 

this case is hereby REMANDED to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 15 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 2