Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE RENAISSANCE 300 

APARTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARY TAYLOR, BRUCE E. TAYLOR, 

JR., DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:16-cv—01566-MCE-KJN-PS

ORDER

On July 8, 2016, Defendants MARY TAYLOR AND BRUCE E. TAYLOR, JR

(“Defendants”), proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer 

action filed by Plaintiff THE RENAISSANCE 300 APARTMENTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) from 

the Sacramento County Superior Court.

1

 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent 

duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is 

on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against 

removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)

(internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 

 1 Despite Defendants’ pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 

a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01566-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 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

2

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendants have failed to meet that burden. 

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a). However, a review of 

the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, it alleges

only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 

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

federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage 

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, 

Defendants argues that they have a defense under federal law. “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, and even if both parties admit that the defense is 

the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of 

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).

Accordingly:

1. The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. 16UD03176) in the proof of service.

Case 2:16-cv-01566-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 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

3

3. Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 and 3) are

DENIED as moot.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD03176. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01566-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 3