Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03252/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03252-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REO CAPITAL FUND 4, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALESHIA FULLER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03252-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DE 

NOVO DETERMINATION AND 

REMANDING ACTION 

Re: ECF No. 10

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation prepared by Magistrate Judge Kandis 

A. Westmore. ECF No. 7. Judge Westmore recommends that the Court remand the present action 

to state court, as federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Id. Defendant asks this Court to

conduct a de novo determination of the question of federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Local Rule 72-3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). ECF No. 10. The Court will grant 

the motion for de novo determination and remand the action to Contra Costa County Superior 

Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff REO Capital Fund 4, LLC brought the current action in Contra Costa County 

Superior Court on July 7, 2015. ECF No. 1 at 4. The complaint alleges a cause of action for 

unlawful detainer. Id. Plaintiff requests restitution of possession of property, damages of $66.66 

per day from July 1, 2015 until rendition of Judgment in the present action, and statutory damages 

of $600. Id. at 6. 

Defendant filed a notice of removal on July 13, 2015. Id. at 1-2. Defendant states that 

federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to “28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 15 

U.S.C. §1601, et. seq. (TILA); 15 U.S.C. §1692, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 12 U.S.C 

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 11 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 4
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

§2601 (RESPA); 28 U.S.C §1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction) and the Home Ownership and 

Equity Protection Act (‘HOEPA’) 12 U.S.C. §1461 et seq.” Id. at 2. 

Following removal, the case was assigned to Judge Westmore. Defendant consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 5. Plaintiff, however, did 

not file a notice of consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Judge Westmore issued 

a report and recommendation advising that the action “should be remanded to state court, as 

removal is obviously improper.” ECF No. 7. Noting that Plaintiff had not consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction, the order directed the case to be reassigned to a District Judge. Id.

II. MOTION FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Civil Local 

Rule 72-3, a party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations by 

filing a motion for a de novo determination of a dispositive mattered referred to a magistrate 

judge. Such a motion must be filed within fourteen days of the magistrate’s recommendation and 

must specifically identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which the party 

objects, and the reasons for the objection(s). 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 

72-3. When a party properly requests a de novo determination under these rules, the Court must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that the party has objected to. Id. 

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, receive further evidence; 

or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” See id.

Defendant filed the present motion for de novo determination within fourteen days of 

Judge Westmore’s July 27, 2015 Report and Recommendation. Defendant has identified the 

particular finding to which she objects: Judge Westmore’s conclusion that federal subject matter 

jurisdiction is lacking. Because Defendant has satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636, 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Civil Local Rule 72-3, the Court hereby grants

Defendant’s Motion for a De Novo Determination of Judge Westmore’s recommendation that this 

action be remanded to state court. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 11 Filed 08/19/15 Page 2 of 4
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 California

III. FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. Legal Standard

“Except 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 . . . to the district court . . . for the district and division embracing the 

place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking to remove the action 

must file a notice of removal within thirty days of the party’s receipt of service of the initial 

complaint or the summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). A party seeking to remove an action also 

bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 

(9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Federal courts may only hear actions over which they possess subject-matter jurisdiction. 

See Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Generally, the existence of jurisdiction may be premised on either diversity of the parties or a 

federal question. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 

2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Federal question jurisdiction is limited by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires 

that the basis for federal jurisdiction appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law, or because the plaintiff’s “right to 

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). “[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense . . . , even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint . . . .” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted). Federal question jurisdiction may also be 

proper when the plaintiff’s “right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law in dispute between the parties.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 13.

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 11 Filed 08/19/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Analysis

Defendant’s notice of removal states that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Plaintiff has pled a single claim for unlawful detainer, which arises under 

California law, and does not present a substantial question of federal law. Defendant’s notice of 

removal identifies several federal statutes. ECF No. 1 at 2. As Judge Westmore noted, however,

these statutes do not provide a basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action, as they do not appear on the face of the complaint. 

Defendant’s motion for de novo determination states that “[t]he Action should not be 

remanded because multiple violations of federal law occurred in the bringing of the Action.” ECF 

No. 10 at 3. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff acquired possession of the disputed 

property in violation of federal law. Again, “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.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (quotations 

and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s alleged violations of federal law do not appear on the face of the 

Plaintiff’s “properly pleaded complaint.” Even if Defendant intends to argue that Plaintiff is not 

in valid possession of the property under federal law as a defense to the unlawful detainer action, 

“a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Id.

Because the complaint in this action contains no cognizable basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Court will remand the action to state court.

CONCLUSION

Upon a de novo determination of the question of federal subject matter jurisdiction, the 

Court finds no basis for federal jurisdiction exists in this action. This action is hereby remanded to 

the Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 11 Filed 08/19/15 Page 4 of 4