Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01172/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

CAPITAL INCOME AND GROWTH 

FUND, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BERNARD CLARK, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-01172-GEB-AC 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff Capital Income and Growth Fund, LLC commenced an unlawful detainer action 

in the Tuolumne County Superior Court on November 4, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 7.1 Defendant 

removed this action on May 29, 2015, purportedly on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, 

along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Plaintiff then filed a motion 

to remand on June 8, 2015, with a hearing scheduled for July 15, 2015. ECF No. 6. Defendant 

has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that defendant is unable to prepay fees 

and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when a party seeks to proceed in forma 

 

1

 Citations to court documents refer to the page numbers assigned by the court’s electronic 

docketing system where available. 

Case 2:15-cv-01172-GEB-AC Document 7 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case if the court determines that the plaintiff fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff fails to state a claim when the court lacks 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 

 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). Furthermore, “jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. 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). 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.” Id. 

 Attached to the Notice of Removal is a copy of the complaint filed by plaintiff in the 

Tuolumne County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 7–10. The complaint contains a single claim for 

unlawful detainer. Id. In defendant’s removal notice, he asserts that federal question jurisdiction 

exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., otherwise known as the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 

and “Regulation Z.”2 Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer, however, does not state 

claims under TILA or any other federal law. 

 It is possible that defendant means to assert subject matter jurisdiction by alleging plaintiff 

violated TILA during its pursuit of the underlying unlawful detainer claim. Even if that were the 

case, however, removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party 

claim raising a federal question, whether filed in state or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 327 (5th Cir. 1998); Preciado v. 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, 2011 WL 977819, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. 

Ass’n. v. Bridgeman, 2010 WL 5330499, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010). The complaint 

 

2

 Plaintiff does not reference any statute in relation to Regulation Z, or otherwise explain what 

Regulation Z is. 

Case 2:15-cv-01172-GEB-AC Document 7 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises under state law 

and not under federal law. Thus, this action does not arise under federal law, and jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not exist. 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted; and 

2. The court’s July 15, 2015, hearing on plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 6, is 

VACATED. 

 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 

1. This action be remanded to the Tuolumne County Superior Court; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 6, be DENIED as moot. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 

parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 10, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01172-GEB-AC Document 7 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3