Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03007/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILMINGTON TRUST, NA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES EDWARD MCCREARY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.19-cv-03007-JSC 

ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO 

SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

REMANDED 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

Defendants James Edward McCreary and Cheryl McCreary, proceeding pro se, removed 

this state-law unlawful detainer action to federal court from the Superior Court of Contra Costa 

County, California. Defendants invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction based solely on 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1.) Diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. 

The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper” 

and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of 

Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is

removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal 

subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A 

case removed to federal court must be remanded to state court “if at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, the notice of removal is deficient because the amount in controversy requirement is 

not satisfied. “In unlawful detainer actions, the right to possession is contested, not title to the 

property, and plaintiffs may collect only damages that are incident to that unlawful possession.” 

Case 3:19-cv-03007-JSC Document 4 Filed 06/05/19 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

Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pulido, No. C 12-00277 LB, 2012 WL 40554, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 17, 2012). In other words, the value of the property does not count toward the amount in 

controversy. Here, the unlawful detainer action specifies that it is a small claims civil case “under 

$10,000.00,” (Dkt. No. 1 at 4), and the plaintiff seeks “holdover damages” in the amount of 

$167.00 per day, accruing since the Notice to Quit expired on April 23, 2019, (id. at 5-6). That 

amount is well below the $75,000 threshold. 

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), a case “otherwise removable solely on the 

basis of [diversity] jurisdiction . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly 

joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” See also 

Spencer v. United States District Court, 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear that the

presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b)). The notice of removal states that both Defendants are California citizens. Thus, 

removal is barred under section 1441(b)(2). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE as to why this action 

should not be remanded to state court. Defendants shall respond in writing by June 17, 2019. If 

Defendants fail to respond or their response fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Court will issue a report recommending that a district judge remand the action to 

the Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 5, 2019 

 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-03007-JSC Document 4 Filed 06/05/19 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILMINGTON TRUST, NA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES EDWARD MCCREARY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-03007-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 5, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Cheryl McCreary 

James Edward McCreary

1230 Warner Court 

Lafayette, CA 94549 

Dated: June 5, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

Case 3:19-cv-03007-JSC Document 4 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 3