Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-07301/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-07301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUSAN PLAISTED-WILLIAMS, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.16-cv-07301-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND; ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND REASSIGNING CASE 

On December 22, 2016, Defendants Susan Plaisted-Williams and R. Donald Williams 

(“Defendants”) filed a notice of removal of this unlawful detainer case, originally filed by Plaintiff 

against Defendants in Contra Costa County Superior Court on November 1, 2016, as well as 

applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Applications”). Because the Parties have not yet 

consented to this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court issues this Report and Recommendation and 

reassigns this case to a district judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 

Defendants’ IFP Applications and recommends remanding this matter to state court. 

Defendants’ IFP Applications adequately allege their poverty. Plaisted-Williams is not 

currently employed and has no income from any source. Williams is employed by Opportunity 

Junction in Antioch, CA, where his gross monthly salary is $1150, and his net monthly salary is 

$900. He has no other sources of income. Neither Defendant owns a home, automobile, or bank 

account, and both have $16 in cash. Both Defendants support their 16-year-old child. They both 

pay $1800 in rent, $110 in utilities, and $600 in food per month. Accordingly, Defendants qualify 

for in forma pauperis status, and their IFP Applications are granted. 

However, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case and the case should be 

remanded. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought 

Case 4:16-cv-07301-YGR Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 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 Californi

a

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 shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the 

removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992) (citations omitted). Thus, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to 

the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citation omitted). 

“The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.; see also Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 

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

or on the existence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, a case may be removed 

based on the existence of a federal question only when that federal question appears on the face of 

the properly pleaded complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); 

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002) (“The wellpleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case “arises under” federal law for purposes 

of § 1331.”); see also Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”). 

Here, the face of the complaint referenced in the Notice of Removal asserts only one state 

law claim for unlawful detainer. Because this complaint does not provide any basis for removal, 

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. See Notice of Removal 

at 6 (Complaint for Unlawful Detainer). 

 Further, removal of the action was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which requires 

that an action be removed within thirty days of service or thirty days after it becomes ascertainable 

that the action could be removed. The underlying state court complaint was filed on November 1, 

2016. Defendants were necessarily served with the complaint by at least November 8, 2016, 

Case 4:16-cv-07301-YGR Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 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 Californi

a

which is when they filed a demurrer. However, they did not remove until December 22, 2016, 

more than thirty days later, and nothing in the interim changed the nature of the complaint or made 

it any more or less removable than it was on the date it was served or demurred. Even taking into 

consideration the leniency afforded to pro se litigants, there is no explanation or excuse given for 

Defendants’ failure to timely remove, and remand is appropriate on this basis as well. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) (removed case may be remanded to state court based on a “defect” in the 

removal procedure). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends remanding this case to Contra Costa 

County Superior Court. 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 27, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-07301-YGR Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 3