Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01182/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01182-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASYA AMEENAH HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REALPAGE, INC. dba LEASINGDESK 

and GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01182-TLN-CSK

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant RealPage, Inc.’s (“RealPage”) Notice of 

Removal. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Asya Ameenah Hunter (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action in 

Sacramento County Superior Court on March 22, 2024. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) On April 23, 2024, 

RealPage removed to this Court based solely on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 

RealPage asserts “Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant’s alleged violations of the Federal Fair 

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.” (Id.) Defendant Genuine Data Services, LLC 

(“GDS”) joined in the removal. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) 

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). 

Case 2:24-cv-01182-TLN-CSK Document 15 Filed 11/14/24 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

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 subject matter 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).

Federal question jurisdiction is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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 386. Federal 

question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or thirdparty claim raising a federal question. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter 

v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009).

In invoking federal question jurisdiction, RealPage indicates that Plaintiff alleges claims 

under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), which is a federal law. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) After 

examination of the Complaint, however, it appears Plaintiff only alleges state law claims. 

Specially, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 

1786.20(b); (2) violation of California Civil Code § 1786.18(c); and (3) violation of California 

Civil Code §§ 1786.10 and 1786.22. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8–9.) Further, in the prayer for relief, 

Plaintiff only seeks remedies for violations of state law — not the FCRA. (Id. at 10.) Although

Plaintiff does mention the FCRA three times in the Complaint (id. at ¶¶ 1, 16, 27), those vague 

references are not connected to any of Plaintiff’s actual claims and seem to be boilerplate 

allegations. It therefore appears the Complaint relies solely on California state law and does not 

state any claims under federal law.

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE not later than fourteen (14)

days from the electronic filing date of this Order as to why this action should not be sua sponte

remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 2:24-cv-01182-TLN-CSK Document 15 Filed 11/14/24 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: November 14, 2024

___________________________________ 

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01182-TLN-CSK Document 15 Filed 11/14/24 Page 3 of 3