Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01695/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01695-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ULLA V. JACOBSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01695-JST 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants removed this unlawful detainer case from the Alameda County Superior Court 

on April 14, 2015. ECF No. 1. Defendants state that this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. section 1331, and “is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant . . . in that it 

arises under 18 U.S.C. Section 12131 et Seq. [sic].”

On the same date, Defendants filed a Request for Dismissal in the Alameda Court. ECF 

No. 5. The Alameda Court granted the request and dismissed the case on April 16, 2015. Id.

This Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. “[A]ny civil 

action brought in a [s]tate court of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to [a] district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A 

defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction or diversity 

jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441). If the district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the action should be remanded 

back to the state court. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134(2005). “Federal 

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The court “resolves all ambiguity in favor 

of remand.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042.

Case 3:15-cv-01695-JST Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

There is no federal jurisdiction here. Defendants based their removal petition on 28 U.S.C. 

section 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” But the “law . . . of 

the United States” under which they claim the case arises is “18 U.S.C. Section 12131,” a citation 

which does not describe an actual statute ‒ i.e., there is no federal law by that description. 

Furthermore, the underlying case is one for unlawful detainer, which is clearly a matter of 

California state law. Therefore, because Defendants have not established any basis for federal 

jurisdiction, the Court would ordinarily remand the matter back to state court. 

But that raises another problem: there is no longer a state court proceeding. As previously 

noted, the Alameda Court dismissed its action on April 16, 2015. So it appears the action is moot. 

There is still an argument to be made for remand: the Alameda Court was prohibited by 

the federal removal statute from taking any action once Defendants filed their Notice of Removal. 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (“the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is 

remanded”); Laguna Vill., Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 35 Cal. 3d 174, 180 (1983)

(“Under modern practice, the state court’s jurisdiction is suspended from the moment of removal 

until the case is remanded to it by the federal court.”). So perhaps the dismissal in state court was 

ineffective. This Court could certainly remand to that court and make the Plaintiffs file another 

request for dismissal. 

Common sense dictates otherwise, however. And California law “neither does nor 

requires idle acts.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3532. The sensible thing for this Court to do is to 

acknowledge that there is no longer any dispute, and dismiss the action. The Court now does so, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 1, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01695-JST Document 9 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2