Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320-1/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-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING AND 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Tom Hernandez “of-the Ramirez-family,” proceeding without an attorney and in forma 

pauperis, removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Mr. Hernandez invokes federal 

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b). Given the jurisdictional issue apparent on 

the face of the Complaint, the Court ordered Mr. Hernandez to show cause (“OSC”) as why this 

case should not be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6.) Although the Court ordered Mr. Hernandez to respond in 

writing by February 24, 2020, he failed to do so—by the deadline, or otherwise. Because the 

parties have not yet filed a consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Clerk of the 

Court is ordered to REASSIGN this action to a district court judge. For the reasons explained 

below, the Court recommends that the case be REMANDED.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Hernandez does not have standing to remove the complaint because he is not listed as 

a party on the state-court complaint. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 (“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, to the district court of the United States for the district and 

division embracing the place where such action is pending.”) (emphasis added); Anaya v. 

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 4
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

QuickTrim, LLC, No. CV 12-1967-CAS DTBX, 2012 WL 6590825, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 

2012) (holding that nonparty putative class member had no standing to remove a state court action 

to federal court); Hous. Auth. of City of Atlanta, Ga. v. Millwood, 472 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 

1973) (holding that status as a party to the state court action is a “precondition for the district court 

to have removal jurisdiction”). Further, “[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 

1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the 

removal of the action.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2). The named defendant, Laura Fox, has not 

joined in removal.

Even if Mr. Hernandez has standing, there is no basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the 

federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in 

controversy in excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim 

“arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on 

federal law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. 

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to 

satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 

1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court 

“if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, Mr. Hernandez bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the 

removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. While Mr. Hernandez lists 

several federal statutes in his notice of removal, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to 

federal court on the basis of a federal defense[.]”); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Terrenal, No. 

12–5540, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for asserting federal 

claim jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer”). 

Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00 for 

diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. No. 5-2 at 4 (stating that the 

amount demanded does not exceed $10,000).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court 

judge REMAND this action to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the district court’s ultimate Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 2, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Tom Hernandez

2919 25th Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94132-1539 

Dated: March 2, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 of 4