Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04967/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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 

MMD FAMILY FOUNDATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAMES LEECH, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-04967-JCS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE SUA SPONTE REMAND 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendants James and Janeen Leach, pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from 

state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The undersigned recommends that this 

case be REMANDED sua sponte to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. 

Because the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this 

case will be reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, including action 

on these recommendations. Any party may file objections to these recommendations within 

fourteen days of being served with a copy of this Report. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 

Case 4:16-cv-04967-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 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 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of 

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of 

Removal at p. 9. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case 

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’” 

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may 

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. 

Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. The federal statutory 

and constitutional provisions that Defendants invoke in the Notice of Removal are federal 

defenses, which do not provide a basis for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The 

undersigned therefore finds no basis for federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be 

remanded.1

 

 

1

 The Court notes that Defendants expressly state in the Notice of Removal that federal 

jurisdiction is not based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Notice of Removal at 9. 

In any event, Defendants could not properly remove the action to federal court from California 

state court on the basis of diversity because it is apparent from the Notice of Removal that 

Defendant James Leach is a local defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 

Case 4:16-cv-04967-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

III

RE

De

Da

I. CONC

For the 

EMANDED 

ecember 2, 2

ated: October

LUSION 

reasons stat

to the Califo

2016 Case M

r 11, 2016 

ted above, th

ornia Superio

Management

3

he undersign

or Court for 

t Conferenc

___

JO

Ch

ned recomme

Alameda Co

ce. 

__________

OSEPH C. SP

hief Magistra

ends that this

ounty. The

___________

PERO 

ate Judge 

s action be 

e Court vaca

__________

tes the

_______ 

Case 4:16-cv-04967-HSG Document 8 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 3