Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02551/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02551-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ANURASHIKA JEET AND VIMAL 

SINGH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHELLE HENDERSON,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-02551-TLN-KJN

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Michelle Henderson’s

(“Defendant”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) 

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. 

The Court hereby remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 

due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiffs Anurashika Jeet and Vimal Singh (“Plaintiffs”) filed an 

unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. (Not. of 

Removal, ECF No. 1 at 10.) On October 26, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in the 

Case 2:16-cv-02551-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 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

2

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant

asserts that removal is proper because “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants 

[sic] pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under 

federal law.” (ECF No. 1 at 3, ¶ 7.) For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that subject 

matter jurisdiction does not exist and thus this case must be remanded.

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is 

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 

filed in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the improvident 

grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, 

Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 974 

(2005).

The “presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. 

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60–61 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant removed this case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

(ECF No. 1 at 2–3.) Defendant argues that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or 

Case 2:16-cv-02551-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 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

3

(b).1 (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Section 1441(a) states: “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act 

of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the 

district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such 

action is pending.” Thus for jurisdiction to exist under § 1441(a), a federal question must be

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. 

Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer does not allege a federal cause of action. See, e.g., 

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Yanez, ED-15-CV-02462-VAP-DTBx, 2016 WL 591752, at *1 

(C.D. Cal. February 11, 2016).

This is not changed by Defendant’s seeming intent to raise alleged violations of the Fair 

Housing Act (“FHA”) as a defense, along with a possible counterclaim for other alleged 

violations of the FHA. (See ECF No. 1 at 2–3 (stating she withheld rent due to Plaintiffs’ alleged 

failure to allow “reasonable modifications of the premises” and asserting the alleged failure of the 

building at issue to be “up to code” discriminates against her and a co-tenant she alleges is 

handicapped.) Defendant’s seeming intent to raise said defense and/or counterclaim would not

confer original jurisdiction on this Court. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60 (explaining federal 

jurisdiction can neither be “predicated on an actual or anticipated defense” nor “rest upon an 

actual or anticipated counterclaim”).

To the extent Plaintiff’s notice of removal seeks removal on the basis of Section 1441(b), 

this too fails. Section 1441(b) allows for a case to be removed to federal court on the basis of 

diversity jurisdiction if the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) are met. Section 1332(a) confers 

diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States.” Defendant’s 

Civil Cover Sheet indicates that she and the Plaintiffs are citizens of California, so the 

requirements of Section 1332(a) are not met. (See ECF No. 1-1.) Additionally, in an unlawful 

 

1 Defendant references 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in the title of its filing. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) It does 

so again on the Civil Cover Sheet. (ECF No. 1-1.) It also makes a passing reference to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(b). (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Otherwise, Defendant fails to discuss diversity jurisdiction. 

Nonetheless, this Court discusses below why removal is improper under §1441(b).

Case 2:16-cv-02551-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 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

4

detainer action, only the right to possession of the property is at issue, not the title. See Yanez, 

2016 WL 591752, at *2 (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)). 

Consequently, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount sought in the complaint. 

See id. Here, this fails to meet the $75,000 threshold as Plaintiffs seek less than $10,000. (See 

ECF No. 1 at 10.) 

Thus, Defendant has failed to establish the burden of showing that jurisdiction before this 

Court is proper, and it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal 

jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento. In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (See ECF No. 2.) The Court has reviewed this motion and finds that Defendant

meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02551-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 4