Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00208/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00208-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICENTE ESCALA COLOYAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00208-KAW 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

TO STATE COURT; ORDER 

GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3

On January 11, 2019, Defendant Karen Ibay Coloyan removed this unlawful detainer 

action from San Mateo County Superior Court, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Not. of 

Removal, Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 3.) On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff U.S. Bank, National 

Association filed a motion to remand, as well as attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing the 

motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 9.)

As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that 

the case be remanded to state court and the motion to remand be denied as moot. Additionally, the 

Court grants Defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this unlawful detainer action against Defendants in San Mateo

County Superior Court on or around December 10, 2018. (Not. of Removal at 22.1) Plaintiff 

alleges that on November 26, 2018, a foreclosure sale was held and Plaintiff took title to the 

property. (Id. at 23.) The complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Id.

 

1 When citing to the Notice of Removal, the Court relies on the ECF header page numbers.

Case 4:19-cv-00208-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/25/19 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

at 23-24.) The case is a "limited civil case," in which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a 

certain property located in Daly City, California, which Defendants occupy. Plaintiff also seeks 

damages at the daily rate of $100, starting on December 7, 2018. (Id. at 24.)

On December 11, 13, 15, and 18, 2018, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants. (Not. of 

Removal at 12.) On January 2, 2019, the San Mateo County Superior Court issued an "Order for 

Service of Summons by Posting," allowing the summons and complaint to be posted at the 

property and mailed to Defendants. (Id. at 8.) On or around January 8, 2019, Defendants were 

served by posting. (Not. of Removal ¶ 2.) On January 9, 2019, Defendant Karen Coloyan 

removed the action to federal court on the ground that federal question and diversity jurisdiction 

exist. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A "federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may 

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at 

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). "[R]emoval statutes are strictly 

construed against removal." Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance," such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor 

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that 

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to 

Case 4:19-cv-00208-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/25/19 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

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[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 . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant Coloyan removed this unlawful detainer action from state court on the grounds 

that the district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Defendant Coloyan conclusorily states that "[t]his action is a civil action of which this 

Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331," but identifies no federal claims in the 

complaint. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.) Instead, Defendant Coloyan states that "[t]he Complaint 

alleges that Defendants are in unlawful possession of their home, violations of a state statute, and 

consequently arises under the laws of the State of California . . . ." (Not. of Removal ¶ 8.) Thus, 

Defendant Coloyan has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim will 

turn on a substantial question of federal law. The complaint, therefore, fails to present a federal 

question or a substantial question of federal law.

Moreover, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any 

additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding 

claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, 

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 

1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit 

removal). Accordingly, even if Defendants could raise defenses based on federal law, such 

defenses would not establish federal question jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Defendant

Coloyan’s contention that there are federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions "where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is 

Case 4:19-cv-00208-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/25/19 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

between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the 

opposing parties. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the 

forum defendant rule, however, "a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of 

[diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and 

served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b). Here, Plaintiff's citizenship is unknown, and Defendant Coloyan is a citizen of California

as she lives in Daly City, California. (See Not. of Removal at 1.) Thus, the forum defendant rule 

applies, and the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings and that

the motion to remand be DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request to proceed 

in forma pauperis.

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

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: February 25, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00208-KAW Document 11 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 4