Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00174/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00174-LB

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 

San Francisco Division 

FRANK PANACCI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANA BURKE and RANDY BURKE, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-00174-LB 

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

CASE TO STATE COURT 

Re: ECF No. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Frank Panacci filed an unlawful-detainer case against his tenants, the defendants Dana 

and Randy Burke, in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County.1 Dana Burke, who is 

representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, removed the case from state court, 

asserting federal-question jurisdiction.2

 There is no federal-question jurisdiction, and remand to 

state court thus is appropriate. The parties have not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.3

This case therefore must be reassigned. The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this 

 

1

 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 8–10. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2 Id. at 2–3 (¶¶ 5–11). 

3

 Declination – ECF No. 8. 

Case 3:20-cv-00174-JD Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00174-LB 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

case to a district judge and recommends that the newly assigned judge sua sponte remand the case 

back to the Superior Court. 

ANALYSIS 

Subject to certain requirements and limitations, a defendant generally may remove a case from 

state court to federal court where the case presents either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)–(c). The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for the 

federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 

712 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may 

remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The removing defendant alleges the following to support the contention that there is federalquestion jurisdiction: (1) the “[p]leadings intentionally fails to allege compliance with the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968. & Tenant Protection act of 2019. Defendant is dealt with in a Prejudicial 

Manner;”4 and (2) the “defendant is a member of a protected class of whom the statue, the ‘Civil 

Rights Act of 1968’ was created. The Federal Cause of Action in ejectment/eviction is the basis 

for this action, irrespective of artful pleading, such that action could have been brought in Federal 

District Court.”5 

The complaint does not present any federal questions and involves only a state-law unlawfuldetainer claim. Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the 

court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. 3:11-cv00451-WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, 

No. 4:11-cv-01894-PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit 

Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 

2010). As for the defendant’s argument that the defense to the action requires the determination of 

federal law, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the 

 

4

 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 6). 

5

Id. at 3 (¶¶ 10–11). 

Case 3:20-cv-00174-JD Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00174-LB 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 Californi

a

face of the plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. A 

federal question raised only in a response to a complaint does not establish federal-question 

jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The defendant does not assert diversity jurisdiction, and it does not exist in any event. The 

defendant resides at the property at issue (located in California) and appears to be a citizen of 

California, and, according to the three-day notice to quit attached to the complaint, the plaintiff 

(Frank Panacci) receives rent at for the subject property in Walnut Creek, California and thus also 

appears to be citizen of California.6 Additionally, the complaint alleges less than $10,000 in 

damages,7 well under the $75,000 requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Because the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, sua sponte remand 

is appropriate. 

CONCLUSION 

The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge. The 

undersigned recommends that the newly assigned district judge sua sponte remand this case back 

to the Superior Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. 

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to review of the issue in the district court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: January 17, 2020 

 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

6

 Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit – ECF No. 1 at 11. 

7

 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 10. 

Case 3:20-cv-00174-JD Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3