Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02841/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02841-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA SWAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02841-MEJ 

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION

On May 26, 2016, Defendants removed this unlawful detainer action from Contra Costa

County Superior Court. However, as it appears that jurisdiction is lacking, this case should be 

remanded to state court. As Defendants did not yet consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the 

Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district judge with the 

recommendation that the case be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived. Billingsly v. C.I.R., 868 

F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the 

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate – those involving diversity of citizenship 

or a federal question, or those to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. 

FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal courts have no power to consider claims 

for which they lack subject-matter jurisdiction).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “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

Case 3:16-cv-02841-WHA Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 4
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

the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place where such action is pending.” However, the removal statutes are construed restrictively so 

as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 

(1941); see also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking 

removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court must 

remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 936 (9th 

Cir. 2003).

Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. Toumajian v. 

Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[f]or removal to be appropriate, a federal question 

must appear on the face of the complaint”); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987) (federal question must be presented on face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint); 

Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 1970) (existence of 

diversity jurisdiction must be sufficient on the face of the complaint). Jurisdiction may not be 

based on a claim raised as a defense or a counterclaim. K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 

653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

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

detainer, does not provide any ground for removal. “An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does 

not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.” Snavely v. Johnson, 2015 

WL 5242925, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (citations omitted); HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Serrato, 

2013 WL 3337813, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013).

Further, where diversity is cited as a basis for jurisdiction, “removal is not permitted if a 

defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action, 

even if the opposing parties are diverse.” Snavely, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005)) (granting plaintiff’s motion to 

remand unlawful detainer case because defendants were California citizens and action had 

Case 3:16-cv-02841-WHA Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 4
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

originally been brought in California state court). Moreover, the damages claim in this case is 

under $10,000. District courts has original jurisdiction over diversity cases only where the amount 

in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Pursuant to 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 86(a)(4), an unlawful detainer is a limited civil action 

where the “whole amount of damages claimed” must be “twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) 

or less.” “[T]he amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real 

property, determines the amount in controversy.” Snavely, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2. Thus, “even 

where an unlawful detainer action involves foreclosure on a mortgage that exceeds $75,000, the 

amount of the mortgage does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” Id. (citing 

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v. Heredia, 2012 WL 4747157, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (holding 

that the amount in controversy requirement was not met even where the mortgage was valued at 

over $75,000)).

Finally, an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer 

jurisdiction. See Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002); 

Franchise Tax Bd. of Ca. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). “A case may 

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is 

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health and 

Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Valles v. Ivy 

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does 

not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is 

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). Thus, any anticipated defense is not a valid ground for 

removal. See e.g., Nguyen v. Bui, 2012 WL 762156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (holding that 

affirmative defenses based upon Federal Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction upon state unlawful detainer claim); Aurora 

Loan Serv., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2010) (answer 

asserting plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not confer federal 

jurisdiction over unlawful detainer claim).

Case 3:16-cv-02841-WHA Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

CONCLUSION

As jurisdiction appears to be lacking, the hereby RECOMMENDS that this case be 

remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall reassign this case to a 

district court judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to

this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: June 2, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02841-WHA Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 4