Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00991/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00991-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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 

LAURA WAKEFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CLARA SIMON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-00991-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This is an unlawful detainer action, with an amount in controversy of less than 

$2,000. See ECF No. 1. On May 10, 2016, defendants Clara Simon and Judy Simon removed 

this case to federal court. Id. Additionally, defendants filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. ECF Nos. 3, 4. On May 11, 2016, plaintiff Laura Wakefield filed a motion with the 

court to remand this case, ECF No. 5, and to shorten time for hearing on the motion to remand, 

ECF No. 6. 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

Case 2:16-cv-00991-KJM-AC Document 8 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

established federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Yuba County Superior 

Court. Because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, and the main if not only issue 

turns on state law, removal is improper because this court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. 

This case is REMANDED to Yuba County Superior Court. Defendants’ IFP 

motions are DENIED as MOOT. Because the court remands the case on its own accord, Ms. 

Wakefield’s motions to remand and to shorten the time for hearing her motion are DENIED as 

moot. 

This resolves ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00991-KJM-AC Document 8 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2