Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05054/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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

DORIS PANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD SANDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05054-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4

Defendants removed the complaint against them from the California Superior Court for 

Contra Costa County. (Dkt. 1.) Each Defendant concomitantly filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Dkts. 2, 3, 4.) All Defendants are proceeding pro se. Because the Court finds that 

Defendants qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the applications. 

However, the Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that it fails to establish federal 

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is 

required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pratt v. 

Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987). However, Defendant has not consented to the 

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and, therefore, the undersigned does 

not have the authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that 

this case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge. As discussed below, the Court finds that 

jurisdiction is lacking and RECOMMENDS that the case be remanded.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis 

complaint where subject matter jurisdiction is absent. Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th 

Cir. 1987). The Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand a case 

sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g.,

Case 4:19-cv-05054-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 3
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

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

establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and the 

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 

F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 

instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

The Court does not have federal question or diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

Diversity jurisdiction does not exist here because all parties are California residents and the 

amount in controversy is under $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “The presence or absence of federalquestion jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-pleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff 

is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance 

on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises 

where the “complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the 

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal 

law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 

Here, Plaintiff Doris Pang filed an unlawful detainer and eviction action against 

Defendants in Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint only raises 

issues of state law. In their notice of removal, Defendants assert in conclusory fashion that “[t]he 

complaint presents federal questions” but do not provide any facts to support that assertion or 

specifically allege how any federal laws are implicated in the case. (Id.) Because the complaint 

alleges only claims under state law, and Defendants have not demonstrated that any federal 

question is at issue, the Court finds that there is no federal question jurisdiction. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:19-cv-05054-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be REMANDED back to Contra 

Costa County Superior Court. Any party may object to this recommendation within fourteen days 

of the filing date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05054-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/26/19 Page 3 of 3