Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02388/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-02388-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETRA MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-02388-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 12

On May 29, 2019, the court remanded this action to state court for lack of federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 10. Presently before the court is a Motion for Reconsideration of 

Remand of Action to State Court filed by Defendants Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson

(“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 12. Defendants argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction applies to 

their action because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy alleged by Defendants is 

over $750,000, exceeding the $75,000 minimum to meet this standard. For the reasons stated in 

the previous order and expanded below, Defendants’ motion will be denied.

Removal by a defendant is proper where the federal courts would have had original 

jurisdiction over an action filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have 

original jurisdiction over civil actions either presenting a federal question, or where diversity of 

citizenship exists and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1332(a). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992).

Here, Defendants’ removal is based on diversity jurisdiction. Defendants allege they are 

citizens of the State of California and Plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, is a citizen 

of the State of New York (“Plaintiff”). New York is the location of Plaintiff’s principal place of 

Case 5:19-cv-02388-EJD Document 13 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02388-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 California

business and incorporation. Defendants insist that the amount in controversy is met because if 

they were to prevail, the amount owed to them “would be above $750,000 dollars.” Dkt. No. 12 at 

3. However, as mentioned previously, the complaint in this action states that the amount in 

controversy does not exceed $10,000. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1. Moreover, Defendants have not 

established how they arrived at the $750,000 figure, nor is it apparent in their pleadings. Unlawful 

detainer actions are pure matters of state law and “are strictly within the province of state court.” 

McGee v. Seagraves, No. 60-CV-0495-MCE-GGH-PS, 2006 WL 2014142, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 

17, 2006); see also Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, No. CV 11-3979 PSG (AJWx), 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a 

claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). Thus, because 

neither federal question nor diversity exists, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remand 

is proper. 

Lastly, as citizens of this state, Defendants are prohibited from removing this action to this 

court given the New York Plaintiff has brought this action to them in California. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(b)(2) (stating that an action may not be removed on the basis of diversity “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.”); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 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.”).

The district court may raise a question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Nevada v. 

Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the court concludes, for the same 

reasons articulated in the court’s prior order remanding this case, that it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action and the case must be remanded to state court. The 

motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-02388-EJD Document 13 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 2