Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01934/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01934-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTINA MASANGCAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAYNE B. RICHARDSON, and all 

tenants, subtenants, named claimants and 

other occupants of the premises, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-01934-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

On August 16, 2016, pro se defendant Wayne B. Richardson removed this 

unlawful detainer action from San Joaquin County Superior Court, and moved to proceed in 

forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to the San 

Joaquin County Superior Court and DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not established federal 

jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 

Case 2:16-cv-01934-KJM-DB Document 3 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “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). 

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the San Joaquin County 

Superior Court. The form complaint filed in the state court is for unlawful detainer only. ECF 

No. 1. Defendant grounds the removal on the court’s federal question jurisdiction, arguing that 

“[f]ederal question exists because [d]efendant’s Answer, a pleading[,] depend [sic] on the 

determination of [d]efendant’s rights and [p]laintiff’s duties under federal law.” Id. at 3. 

However, plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading 

solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Defendant has not shown any federal question arises from plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant’s 

assertion is best characterized as a defense or a potential counterclaim, neither of which can be 

considered in evaluating whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 

556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated 

counterclaim”); Valles, 410 F.3d at 1075 (“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.”); Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 

F.3d 320, 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

Accordingly, because plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not provide a 

basis for federal question jurisdiction, and defendant’s answer cannot provide the basis for 

removal jurisdiction here, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 

single state-law claim for unlawful detainer. This case is REMANDED to San Joaquin County 

Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 22, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01934-KJM-DB Document 3 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 2