Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05464/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NEXT GENERATION CAPITAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARY THAI, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-13-05464 DMR

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO

DISTRICT JUDGE; AND REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IFP

APPLICATIONS AND REMAND TO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SOLANO

Defendants Mary Thai, Quang Thai, Nancy Lopez, and Pascual Lopez removed this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 from Superior Court of California, County of Solano, where it was

pending as a complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants. The Notice of Removal states one

ground for removal: that the Complaint presents a federal question such that the case could have

originally been filed in this Court. (Notice of Removal at 6, ¶ 3.) Defendants Nancy Lopez and

Pascual Lopez have also filed applications 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). The parties

have not yet filed a declination or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the court issues herein a Report and Recommendation and reassigns this

Case 4:13-cv-05464-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

case to a District Judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that the IFP applications be

granted and that summary remand be ordered.

I. IFP Application

Having evaluated Defendants Nancy Lopez and Pascual Lopez’s financial affidavits, the

court finds that they have satisfied the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and

therefore recommends that the IFP applications be granted. The court next turns to the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction.

II. Federal Question 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). “[T]he 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 La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)

(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to

evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in

removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 n.2

(2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what is or

should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. 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.

According to Defendants’ Notice of Removal, a federal question arises because “Defendant’s

[sic] strongly believe they have been discriminated [sic] and that the Plaintiff has violated federal

law, by doing so,” citing the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq. 

(Notice of Removal at 2.) The complaint that Plaintiff filed in Solano County Superior Court,

however, simply alleges a state cause of action under unlawful detainer. (See Compl.) Whatever

Defendants intend to argue in response to this allegation does not give rise to removal jurisdiction. 

Nguyen v. Bui, No. 12-501 HRL, 2012 WL 762156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (holding that

Case 4:13-cv-05464-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

affirmative defenses based upon Federal Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction upon state unlawful detainer claim). 

 III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the court recommends that Defendants Nancy Lopez and Pascual

Lopez’s IFP applications be granted and that this action be remanded to the Solano County Superior

Court. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to a District Judge.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2014

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-cv-05464-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 3