Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00356/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00356-0/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

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff.

v.

MARIA YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00356-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Defendant Maria Young, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed this unlawful 

detainer action to federal court. Young invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and asserts that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 

and 1446. As neither party has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c), the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, 

the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge. 

Finding that federal jurisdiction is lacking as the single claim in the complaint arises 

exclusively out of state law and the amount in controversy is less than $10,000, the Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court REMAND this action to state court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Plaintiff”) initiated this residential 

unlawful detainer action in Contra Costa County Superior Court on December 24, 2013. (Dkt. No. 

1 at Ex. A.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased the subject property located at 2432 

Ohatch Drive, San Pablo CA 94806, at a foreclosure sale on October 30, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Maria Young, Lawrence Young, and Evangeline Young 

have since failed to surrender possession of the property despite being served with a 3-day Notice 

Case 3:15-cv-00356-JD Document 4 Filed 02/23/15 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

to Quit on December 12, 2013. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff seeks possession of the property and holdover 

damages at a rate of $60.00 per day. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)

Maria Young removed the case to federal court on January 26, 2015. (Dkt. No. 1.) Young 

alleges that removal is proper because this case presents a federal question and there is diversity 

jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

A. IFP Application

Young moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 2.) 

The Court finds that Young has shown good cause that she is unable to pay the filing fee 

associated with removing a complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Young’s request to 

proceed IFP.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Having granted Young’s request to proceed IFP, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is 

required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pratt v. 

Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987). Even aside from Section 1915 review, the Court has 

an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand a case sua sponte for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction 

is proper. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006). For the reasons 

explained below, Young has failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Defendant Young alleges that removal is proper under the federal question statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Defendant Young’s removal 

of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action to federal court lacks merit because the court does not have 

subject matter or diversity jurisdiction over the claims. It is well settled that federal courts do not 

have federal question jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, where federal law does not 

create the cause of action and the plaintiff’s right to relief as to its claims does not depend on a 

resolution of a question of federal law. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Chavez, No. C 11-5129 

PSG, 2011 WL 6760349, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) (citations omitted), report & 

Case 3:15-cv-00356-JD Document 4 Filed 02/23/15 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

recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 6749057 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2011); see also, e.g., Eden 

Housing Mgmt. v. Muhammad, No. C 07-4325 SBA, 2007 WL 4219397, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

28, 2007) (no federal question jurisdiction on the face of an unlawful detainer complaint); 

Citibank N.A. v. Ortiz, No. 08-cv-1301 LAB, 2008 WL 4771932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) 

(same). 

Although Defendant alleges in her removal papers that the unlawful detainer at issue 

relates to violations of her civil rights arising under federal law (see Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3), 

“removability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal 

question.” Eden Housing Mgmt., 2007 WL 4219397, at *2 (quoting Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l 

Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2s 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985)); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 

1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Neither allegations or affirmative defenses in an Answer nor in the 

petition for removal can create federal jurisdiction.”); see, e.g., Chavez, 2011 WL 6760349, at *1 

(remanding unlawful detainer action where defendant sought to establish federal question 

jurisdiction through federal statutory counterclaim); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pinzon, No. 

12-cv-03450 NC, 2012 WL 3527232, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2012), report & recommendation 

adopted by 2012 WL 3536761 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2012). In other words, because the complaint 

on its face presents no federal question, and a defendant cannot bootstrap federal jurisdiction by 

pleading a defense or counterclaim, the instant unlawful detainer action must be remanded for 

determination by the state court. 

The Court further finds that there is no diversity jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s unlawful 

detainer action, which was filed in the superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less 

than $10,000 in controversy. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 11 (superior court complaint for unlawful detainer 

pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a).) For the reasons already discussed, any 

damages related to Defendant’s purported civil rights counterclaim is not part of the amount-incontroversy calculation. See Chavez, 2011 WL 6760349, at *1. In addition, only non-resident 

defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Spencer v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any 

“local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action cannot be removed by 

Case 3:15-cv-00356-JD Document 4 Filed 02/23/15 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

that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 

628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Here, the complaint alleges that Young resides at the subject property, 

located in San Pablo, California, and is therefore a citizen of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) As 

Young is a “local” defendant, removal is improper on this basis as well.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Young’s IFP application. However, as the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action, the Court recommends that this action be REMANDED to the Contra 

Costa County Superior Court. Any party may object to this recommendation within fourteen days 

of the filing date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00356-JD Document 4 Filed 02/23/15 Page 4 of 4