Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01356/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01356-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AL TURNAGE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-01356-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On June 17, 2016, pro se defendant Al Turnage removed this unlawful detainer 

action from Solano County Superior Court, and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 

1, 2. As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to the Solano 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 Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time 

Case 2:16-cv-01356-KJM-EFB Document 4 Filed 06/24/16 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

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 Shasta 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 “[t]he 

trust deed loan under which the right to foreclosure arose is controlled under [f]ederal law,” and 

that the unlawful detainer action resulted from discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Id. at 3. 

Defendant further argues that the state courts wrongfully allowed foreclosure. Id. 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). Hence, 

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 counterclaim 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 Solano County 

Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 24, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01356-KJM-EFB Document 4 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2