Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03251/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03251-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ED WASNIOWSKI and JUSTIN

ROBERTS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JEANNINE DAVILA,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-03251 WHA

ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

INTRODUCTION

In this removed unlawful detainer action, plaintiff moves to remand the action to state

court. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs Ed Wasniowski and Justin Roberts brought an action for unlawful detainer in

Contra Costa Superior Court against defendant Jeannine Davila in June 2016. Plaintiffs’ sole

claim was for unlawful detainer under state law to obtain possession of a recently foreclosed

residential real property at 51 Freemark Court, Oakley, CA 94561. Plaintiffs came into

possession of this property through a trustee sale. The complaint alleges that defendant owes

plaintiffs: (1) restitution, (2) damages at the rate of $70 per day from January 24, 2016, for each

day that defendant continues in possession of the property, and (3) costs herein, attorney’s fees,

and further relief as is proper.

Case 3:16-cv-03251-WHA Document 21 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Defendant’s adult children, Nico, Alec, and Celine Davila, are interested parties who

live with and pay rent to their mother at 51 Freemark Court. Defendant’s children never sought

leave to intervene pursuant to Section 387 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, so the

state court never granted intervention. Nevertheless, with defendant’s consent, her adult

children lodged a notice of removal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in federal

district court in an attempt to remove the action to federal court.

In the notice of removal, defendant’s adult children argued that removal was proper

based on federal-question jurisdiction because the unlawful detainer violated their rights under

the United States Constitution and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to them, the

alleged federal rights violations stemmed from the following language in the three-day notice

to quit issued during the eviction proceeding: “[I]f you do not respond within five (5) days of

receiving the [unlawful detainer] papers, even if you are not named in the papers, you will

likely lose any rights you may have. In some cases, you can respond without hurting your

credit” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 2–3).

Two days after receiving this notice of removal, plaintiffs moved to remand the action to

state court. Defendant’s opposition to remand followed. In the opposition, rather than explain

how the language in the three-day notice to quit was unconstitutional, defendant raised a new

argument that the state statute governing the three-day notice to quit is discriminatory against

Hispanics. 

On July 5, 2016, defendant filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint against

various state court officials with whom defendant interacted during the course of the unlawful

detainer proceedings. The counterclaim alleges various constitutional violations, stating that

plaintiffs in the unlawful detainer action and various state court officials treated defendant and

her adult children differently because they are Hispanic. Finally, on July 11, defendant and her

adult children filed a motion for a TRO (which requires subject-matter jurisdiction) against

plaintiffs to halt the eviction. This order addresses the motion to remand and follows full

briefing and oral argument.

Case 3:16-cv-03251-WHA Document 21 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

ANALYSIS

1. REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1441(A).

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original

jurisdiction would have existed at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). 

The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant bears the burden

of establishing proper removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.

2009). 

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, federal-question jurisdiction exists only where

the federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480,

1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, the relevant inquiry for making this jurisdictional determination is

to examine the specific claims made by plaintiff and decide if they are under federal or state

law. Indeed, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, “must be determined from what necessarily

appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration.” Aetna Health

Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004). More importantly for this motion, the “well-pleaded

complaint” rule does not allow a defense or counterclaim to confer jurisdiction. Holmes Grp.,

Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831–32 (2002).

Plaintiffs move to remand on the grounds that their complaint for unlawful detainer

contains no basis for the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction and that defendant’s federal

defense does not provide a basis for the exercise of removal jurisdiction either. This order

agrees.

Here, the face of the complaint asserts only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. 

An unlawful detainer action arises purely under state law and therefore cannot provide grounds

for removal. See Equity Residential Mgmt., LLC v. Parker, 2016 WL 3004817, at *1 (N.D.

Cal. May 3, 2016) (Judge Maria-Elena James). Defendant asserts the unconstitutionality of

Section 1161c of the California Civil Procedure Code, which governs the three-day notice

to quit used for an unlawful detainer following a foreclosure. This fails to cure the problem.

“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

Case 3:16-cv-03251-WHA Document 21 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

complaint.” Valles v. Ivey Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the

counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, even if a valid challenge,

cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not arise from plaintiff’s initial cause

of action for unlawful detainer. Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). 

Accordingly, removal in this case was improper. Furthermore, there is a serious question as

to whether defendant ever filed a proper notice for removal so as to interrupt the State court’s

jurisdiction. Nevertheless, out of caution this order will remand the action to make sure the

proceedings continue in State court.

2. REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1443(1).

Section 1443(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code entitles a defendant to remove

based on a limited set of federal defenses. A successful petition for removal under

Section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. “First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense . . .

rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.” 

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). “Second, petitioners must assert that

the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to

a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore

the federal rights.” Ibid.

Defendant invoked Section 1443(1) for the first time in her opposition to remand but

failed to identify any state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state

courts to ignore her federal rights. The challenged state law, Section 1161c, is merely a notice

requirement. It contains no facially discriminatory language and it does not deny any federally

protected right. A theory that Section 1161c disproportionately hurts Hispanics does not satisfy

the second prong of the two-part test and therefore defendant lacked any basis for removal. 

Thus, the action must be remanded. 

Case 3:16-cv-03251-WHA Document 21 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED. The Clerk shall

remand this action to the Superior Court for Contra Costa County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03251-WHA Document 21 Filed 07/13/16 Page 5 of 5