Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03802/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03802-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

Case No.16-cv-03802 NC 

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

RESERVATION ESTATES 

APARTMENTS LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD B. GRIFFIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03802 NC 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

FOR LACK OF FEDERAL 

JURISDICTION

Defendant Ronald Griffin filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has 

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On July 11, 2016, this Court ordered 

defendant to show cause by July 20, 2016, why removal was proper. Defendant failed to 

respond. The parties also failed to comply with the Court’s order to consent to or decline 

its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to a 

district court judge. The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court REMAND the 

action to the Superior Court of California for Monterey County for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Reservation Estates Apartments LP is a California limited partnership and 

owns the property at 366 Reservation Road, Marina, California. Dkt. No. 1 at 6. 

Reservation Estates brought a limited claim for unlawful detainer in Monterey County 

Superior Court against Ronald Griffin to evict him from the property and recover damages 

Case 5:16-cv-03802-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-03802 NC 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

in the amount of $1080 and $32.29 per day from June 1, 2016. Id. at 8. Griffin responded 

to the complaint and admitted the allegations. Id. at 9. On July 7, 2016, Griffin removed 

the action to federal court alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1441.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is 

between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A federal district court must 

remand a removed case to state court “[i]f at any time before the final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In deciding 

whether removal was proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute against finding 

jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

that removal was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 

F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Where doubt exists regarding the right 

to remove an action, it should be resolved in favor of remand to state court. Matheson v. 

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because Reservation Estates’s claims arise under state law. In the absence of diversity 

jurisdiction, removal to federal court is only proper when “a federal question is presented 

on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or 

anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated 

Case 5:16-cv-03802-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-03802 NC 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

counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). A federal court may 

dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

the action. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3). 

Here, Griffin alleges in his notice of removal that Reservation Estates did not 

comply with the California law and because his answer depends on the determination of 

federal rights, his defense to the unlawful detainer action. This is insufficient as a basis for 

removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense. The well

pleaded complaint rule for federal jurisdiction “makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; 

he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar 

Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. No federal law question is presented in the complaint, so the Court 

does not have jurisdiction under § 1331.

IV. CONCLUSION

The facts alleged fail to show federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Because no party has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), this Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case.

Therefore, this Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to the district court 

and RECOMMENDS that the suit be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for 

Monterey County. Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03802-LHK Document 6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 3