Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02567/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

SAC 4 PRESERVATION LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOWARD M. HERSHIPS; KAREN M. 

FLETCHER; and DOES 1 to 10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02567-MCE-EFB

ORDER

On December 9, 2015, Defendant Howard M. Herships and Karen M. Fletcher , 

proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the 

Sacramento County Superior Court.

1

 ECF No. 1.2 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)

 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). 

2 The case was initially removed to an existing lawsuit filed by Defendants (No. 2:15-cv-01838) on 

December 9, 2015. Since that removal was improper, the unlawful detainer action was subsequently 

severed by Order dated December 11, 2015. The present action was thereafter commenced, also on 

December 11, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-02567-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/23/15 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

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

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

Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 

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

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, a review of the Unlawful Detainer 

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

alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. 

“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 one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At 

most, Defendants argue 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.

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. 15UD07962) in the proof of service.

Case 2:15-cv-02567-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/23/15 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

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

following unlawful detainer action: No. 15UD07962. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 22, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02567-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 3