Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ANDINA PROPERTY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA FOX,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-00320-PJH 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT AND DENYING 

REQUESTED ENFORCEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 9

The court is in receipt of self-proclaimed defendant “Tom Hernandez of-theRamirez family’s” (“Hernandez”) Ex Parte Motion “for the Enforcement of the Automatic 

Stay due to the Jurisdiction of the Federal District Court.” Dkt. 9. In it, Hernandez 

requests that this court issue an order that (1) voids any filing or order made in the San 

Francisco Superior court action (CUD-19-664902) since this matter has been removed to 

this court and (2) limits the scope of any order that a state court officer may make 

pending this action’s maintenance in this court. Dkt. 9 ¶ 8. 

Based on the underlying state court complaint (Dkt. 5-2 at 4-7), this court lacks 

federal subject jurisdiction over this action. Significantly, Hernandez is not a named party 

to this action, Dkt. 5-2 at 5 ¶¶ 6-7, the only claim presented in the underlying complaint

(for unlawful detainer, id. at 4) is non-federal in nature, and the “[a]mount demanded does 

not exceed $10,000,” id. On February 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Corley issued a 

screening order directing Hernandez to address these apparent shortcomings1 and

1 Dkt. 6 at 1 (“The Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to show cause as to (1) how 

he has standing to remove the action from state court, and (2) why this case should not 

be remanded to the San Francisco Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”).

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/12/20 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

Hernandez failed to provide any response. Given such failure, the court concludes both 

that Hernandez may not seek the relief requested because he lacked standing to remove 

this action, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court of which the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 

defendant or the defendants . . .”) (emphasis added), and that the court lacks federal 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action under both a federal question theory, U.S. 

Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Terrenal, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (no federal 

question jurisdiction where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful 

detainer”), as well as a diversity jurisdiction theory, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring that

“the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000”). To the extent 

Hernandez relies upon the numerous purported federal law violations by plaintiff listed in

the notice of removal, Dkt. 1 at 2-4, he has failed to show how any such violations confer 

federal jurisdiction here. In any event, even if the court generously construed such 

violations as affirmative defenses, they would still would not provide a basis for removal. 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“Thus, it is now settled law that a 

case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . .”)

(emphasis in the original). As a result, the court DENIES Hernandez’s requests and sua 

sponte REMANDS this action to the San Francisco Superior Court. Consequently, the 

court TERMINATES Judge Corley’s March 2, 2020 report and recommendation (Dkt. 7).

Separately, the court notes that this removal is either the second or third time2that 

this action (CUD-19-664902) has been removed. On November 8, 2019, Chief

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in Andina Property LLC v. Fox, et al., 19-cv-6168-JCS

ordered this action remanded to San Francisco Superior Court following its September 

30, 2019 removal by defendant Laura Fox (“defendant Fox”). Dkt. 10 at 3. Neither 

Hernandez nor defendants have demonstrated any change in pleading justifying 

2

It appears that another self-claimed defendant, “Rodney Nathaniel of-the-Mastersonfamily,” separately removed this action in Rodney Nathaniel of-the-Masterson-family v. 

Andina Property LLC, et. al., 20-cv-0320-JSW. Dkt. 1 at 1 (noting “CUD-19-664902” as 

the underlying state court case number).

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/12/20 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

Hernandez’s January 15, 2020 removal. The court warns that any improper subsequent

removal by defendant Fox (or others on her behalf) will be subject to the appropriate 

sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3