Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01550/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01550-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,

Plaintiff, No. C 15-1550 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

MARY NEUMEYER, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This case was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,

on April 3, 2015. The court has reviewed the notice of removal and the state court

complaint, the motion to remand filed by plaintiff Moab Investment Group, and the

opposition filed by Mary T. Neumeyer, and finds that the case must be remanded for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived. Billingsly v. C.I.R.,

868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which

the Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate – those involving diversity of

citizenship or a federal question, or those to which the United States is a party.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also ChenCheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992)

(federal courts have no power to consider claims for which they lack subject-matter

jurisdiction). 

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have

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

Case 4:15-cv-01550-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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

1

Plaintiff states in its motion to remand that the original defendant, Mary Neumeyer, is

deceased, and that her adult daughter, Mary T. Neumeyer, entered the case and filed the

notice of removal. 

2

construed restrictively, however, so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas

Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); see also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party

seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The

district court must remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker

Int’l, Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 936 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. Toumajian

v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[f]or removal to be appropriate, a federal

question must appear on the face of the complaint”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (federal question must be presented on face of plaintiff’s properly

pleaded complaint); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1189-90

(9th Cir. 1970) (existence of diversity jurisdiction must be sufficient on the face of the

complaint). Jurisdiction may not be based on a claim raised as a defense or a

counterclaim. K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.

2011). 

The complaint at issue was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court by plaintiff

Moab Investment Group LLC on October 31, 2014. The complaint alleges a single cause

of action under state law for unlawful detainer. See Dkt. 1, Ex. 1. Although the complaint

named only Mary Neumeyer as a defendant, a notice of removal was filed by Mary T. 

Neumeyer1 and Walter Neumeyer (“the Removing parties”).

The notice of removal suffers from a lack of clarity, but appears to claim that the

court has federal question jurisdiction over the case, stating that: “The grounds for such

removal is being bases on claims ‘arising under’ federal law. Namely, as to federal

Case 4:15-cv-01550-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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

3

jurisdiction resulting from the moving party’s application to identify the statutory basis for

the claims.” Dkt. 1 at 1. The notice then presents a list of “federal questions posed”:

1) Why did Trustee fail to provide notice of copy of sell to the Internal

Revenue Service pursuant to IRC Code 7425?

2) Why did Trustee fail to comply with code of federal regulation (CFR §

27.15) Housing and Urban Development (non-judicial foreclosure

single family)?

3) Why did Trustee engage in prohibited transaction pursuant to IRC

4.72.11?

4) Why is Trustee not listed on the list of nonbank Trustees Approved

dated April 1, 2014?

Dkt. 1 at 2.

The notice of removal also claims that “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,”

but there is no other indication that the removing parties are claiming diversity jurisdiction,

especially since they admit in the notice that their “current residence is that of the State of

California.” Dkt. 1 at 2. 

The notice of removal alleges no facts from which the court can find that it has

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. As stated above, the existence of a federal

question must be presented on the face of plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint in this action

raises no federal question, as it asserts only one unlawful detainer cause of action under

state law. While the removing parties purport to present a list of “federal questions posed,”

at best, those demonstrate the existence of possible federal defenses to plaintiff’s state law

claim. The opposition filed by Mary T. Neumeyer similarly claims that “plaintiff failed to

notify Internal Revenue with a copy of the notice of trustee pursuant to IRC Code 7425.” 

However, while plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with an IRC Code section might

demonstrate the presence of a federal affirmative defense or counterclaim, neither are

sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. See K2 America Corp., 653 F.3d at 1029. Thus,

the court finds no basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case. 

Nor does the notice of removal establish diversity jurisdiction. The notice states that

the removing parties’ “current residence is that of the State of California,” and is silent on

the issue of plaintiff’s citizenship. Moreover, in plaintiff’s motion to remand, it asserts that it

is “a limited liability company organized under California laws,” and that “[o]wners/members

Case 4:15-cv-01550-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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

4

of the LLC are all residents of California.” See Dkt. 7 at 6. While the opposition brief

claims, in a conclusory manner, that the court has diversity jurisdiction, it offers no facts

regarding the citizenship of the parties. For that reason alone, the court finds diversity

jurisdiction to be lacking. 

The motion to remand also points out that the underlying state court complaint

alleges daily rental value at $200, starting from October 30, 2014. Thus, at the time of

removal (on April 3, 2015), the amount of controversy was well under $75,000, despite the

conclusory assertions in the notice of removal. Finally, the court notes that the face of the

state court complaint states that it is filed as a “limited civil jurisdiction” case, which means

that recovery is limited to $25,000. See Dkt. 1, Ex. 1 at 3. The body of the complaint also

expressly states that “[p]laintiff remits to the jurisdictional limit of this court.” Id. at 5. 

Diversity jurisdiction is improper for the additional reason that, as California citizens,

defendants cannot remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction, if the case was filed

against them in a California state court. Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83-84

(2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Thus, the court finds no basis for diversity jurisdiction

in this case.

Neither the notice of removal nor the opposition raise any other basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction, and thus, the court finds that the case must be REMANDED to

the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo. In its motion to remand, plaintiff raises

two other bases for remanding the case: (1) before the notice of removal was filed, default

was entered against the removing parties in state court, which cuts off their right to appear

in the action, and (2) the removal was untimely, as it occurred more than 30 days after the

removing parties first appeared in the action. The court agrees that either of these bases,

standing alone, provide sufficient grounds for remand. 

Accordingly, as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and because this case

was improperly removed, defendant’s motion to remand is GRANTED, and the action is

hereby REMANDED to the San Mateo Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:15-cv-01550-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the 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

5

Dated: April 28, 2015 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01550-PJH Document 15 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 5