Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04199/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

DAVID L. BEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARL MOCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04199-KAW 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

CASE TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On July 25, 2016, Defendant Earl Mock removed this unlawful detainer action from 

Sonoma County Superior Court. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) 

As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that 

the case be remanded to state court.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff David L. Beyer, Trustee, commenced this unlawful detainer action in Sonoma

County Superior Court on or around June 29, 2016. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A.) The complaint 

contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a “limited civil case,” in 

which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property located in Windsor, California, 

which Defendants Earl Mock and Nick Jeck occupy. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff leased the property to 

Defendants in or around March 2011. (Compl. ¶ 6.)

Under the terms of the written lease agreement, Defendants’ monthly rental payments of 

$2,100.00 were due on the 10th of the month. (Compl. ¶ 6.) On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly 

served a written Three Day Notice to Pay or Quit on Defendants to deliver possession of the 

premises by posting it on the premises. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.) The Notice was attached as Exhibit 2 to 

the Complaint, but Defendant Mock did not provide the exhibit in his notice of removal.

Case 3:16-cv-04199-EMC Document 4 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

On or around June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in state court. On July 25, 2016, Defendant 

Earl Mock removed the action to federal court on the grounds that it presents a federal question 

because his eviction is in violation of the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009.” (Not. of 

Removal ¶ 6.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. 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) (citation omitted). A defendant may 

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at 

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly 

construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor 

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that 

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to 

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense . . . , even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

Case 3:16-cv-04199-EMC Document 4 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant Earl Mock, presumably on behalf of the other named defendant,

1

removed this 

unlawful detainer action from Sonoma County Superior Court on the grounds that the district 

court has original jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Defendant claims that a federal question exists because the state court unlawful detainer 

action fails to allege compliance with the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009,” as he was 

only served a three day notice to pay rent or quit. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.) Defendant’s rights in an 

unlawful detainer action, however, depend on the interpretation of state law. Further, Defendant 

has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim will turn on a substantial 

question of federal law. In fact, it seems that any such showing is unlikely, as Plaintiff is evicting 

Defendants for alleged nonpayment of rent, and to, among other things, obtain possession of the 

premises under state law. The complaint, therefore, fails to present a federal question or a 

substantial question of federal law.

Moreover, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any 

additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding 

claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, 

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 

1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit 

removal). Here, Defendant’s claim that the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit violates the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009, which allegedly requires a 60 day notice, does not 

establish federal question jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Defendant’s contention that there are 

federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced.

Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or 

counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that 

Defendant’s assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to 

 

1 At this juncture, the Court will assume that the co-defendant joined in the removal.

Case 3:16-cv-04199-EMC Document 4 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . 

. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is 

predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. 

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant 

rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be 

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the 

State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, Plaintiff’s citizenship is 

unknown, and Defendants are citizens of California. Thus, the forum defendant rule applies, and 

the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings. 

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

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

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: July 29, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04199-EMC Document 4 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 4