Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03817-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK RISHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MADLENE NENA ZAMORA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03817-DMR 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE; AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IFP 

APPLICATION AND REMAND TO 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SONOMA 

Re: Dkt. No. 3 

Defendants1

 removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 from Superior Court of 

California, County of Sonoma, where it was pending as a complaint for unlawful detainer. The 

Notice of Removal states one ground for removal: “The amount in controversy includes up to, but 

is not limited to, an actuary exceeding $75,000.” Notice of Removal [Docket No. 1] at 3. 

Defendant Madlene Nena Zamora has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). 

 When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it “promptly,” and, “[i]f it 

clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not 

be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Only 

Defendant Madlene Nena Zamora has filed a consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); the remaining parties have filed neither consents nor declinations. 

Therefore, the court issues herein a Report and Recommendation and reassigns this case to a 

District Judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that the IFP application be granted 

and that summary remand be ordered. 

 

1

 Defendants are Madlene Nena Zamora, Jesus Antonio Longoria, Luis Miguel Zamora, and Juan 

Jose Longoria. Only Madelene Zamora has appeared. 

Case 3:15-cv-03817-EMC Document 6 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

I. IFP APPLICATION 

 Having evaluated Defendant Madlene Nena Zamora’s financial affidavit, the court finds 

that she has satisfied the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and therefore 

recommends that the IFP application be granted. The court next turns to the issue of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). After removal, “if 

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

the case shall be remanded” to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The defendant bears the burden 

of establishing that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and the statute is strictly construed 

against removal jurisdiction. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009). In fact, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). 

One basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction, which 

“exists only when a federal question is presented on the face” of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded 

complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, n. 7 (1987) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). 

Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what is or should 

have been alleged in the complaint. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 

U.S. 826, 830 (2002). The implication of a federal question through issues raised by an answer or 

counterclaim does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 831.

Another basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction. A district 

court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[I]n 

determining whether a challenged jurisdictional amount has been met, district courts are permitted 

only to assess the allegations in a complaint and not the validity of any asserted defenses . . . .” 

Case 3:15-cv-03817-EMC Document 6 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Oc

of a

125

sou

wit

Co

con

Re

jur

sta

this

831

(ho

sta

the

$10

app

Th

wit

N.D

Da

choa v. Interb

a plaintiff’s 

59, 1261-62 

ught did not 

thout regard 

., 561 F.2d 7

Defend

ntroversy inc

moval at 3. 

isdiction. T

te cause of a

s allegation 

1; see also N

olding that af

te unlawful 

e parties, and

0,000,” so th

For the 

plication be 

e Clerk is di

Any pa

thin 14 days 

D. Cal. Civ. 

IT IS S

ated: August 

brew Am., In

claim do no

(9th Cir. 19

affect amou

to any coun

787, 789 (9th

dants’ statem

cludes up to,

This is insu

he complain

action under 

does not giv

Nguyen v. Bu

ffirmative de

detainer clai

d the face of 

he court does

reasons abo

granted and 

irected to rea

arty may file 

after being 

L.R. 72-2. 

SO ORDER

26, 2015 

nc., 999 F.2d

t affect the a

969) (noting 

unt in controv

nterclaim to w

h Cir. 1977)

ment regardin

, but is not li

ufficient to es

nt that Plaint

unlawful de

ve rise to fed

ui, No. 12-50

efenses base

im). Further

the Compla

s not have di

II

ove, the cour

that this act

assign this ca

objections t

served with 

 

RED. 

3

d 626, 629 (2

amount in co

that statute o

versy). Sim

which a defe

. 

ng the ground

imited to, an

stablish eithe

iff filed in S

etainer. Wha

deral question

01 HRL, 201

ed upon fede

rmore, there 

int unequivo

iversity juris

II. CONC

rt recommen

ion be reman

ase to a Dist

to this report

a copy. See

_____

2d Cir. 1993

ontroversy. 

of limitation

milarly, the am

endant may b

ds for remov

n actuary exc

er federal qu

Sonoma Cou

atever Defen

n jurisdiction

12 WL 7621

eral law do n

is no allega

ocally deman

sdiction over

CLUSION

nds that Defe

nded to the S

trict Judge. 

t and recomm

e 28 U.S.C. §

__________

 Un

3). Potential

See Riggins 

ns defense m

mount in con

be entitled. 

val is simply

ceeding $75,

uestion jurisd

unty Superior

ndants intend

n. See Holm

56, at *2 (N

not confer fed

ation concern

nds an amou

r the matter.

endant Madl

Sonoma Cou

mendation w

§ 636(b)(1);

___________

Donna M. 

nited States M

l defenses to 

v. Riggins, 4

might bar port

ntroversy is 

See Snow v.

y that “[t]he a

,000.” Notic

diction or di

r Court simp

d to argue in

mes Group, 5

N.D. Cal. Feb

deral jurisdi

ning the citiz

unt that “doe

 Compl. at 

ene Zamora

unty Superio

with the distr

 Fed. R. Civ

__________

Ryu 

Magistrate J

all or part 

415 F.2d 

tion of relief

determined 

. Ford Moto

amount in 

ce of 

versity 

ply alleges a 

n response to

535 U.S. at 

b. 21, 2012) 

ction upon 

zenship of 

es not exceed

1. 

’s IFP 

or Court. 

rict judge 

v. P. 72(a); 

______ 

Judge 

f

r

o

d

Case 3:15-cv-03817-EMC Document 6 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 3