Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02188/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02188-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

Case No.: 15-cv-02188-NC

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

R.W. ZUKIN CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEX R. ORTIZ,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-02188-NC 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

WITH RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant Alex Ortiz filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On May 18, 2015, this Court ordered 

defendant to show cause by May 25, 2015 why removal was proper. Defendant failed to 

respond. The parties also failed to comply with the Court’s order to consent to or decline 

its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to a 

district court judge. The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court REMAND the 

action to the Superior Court of California for Monterey County for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

////

Case 5:15-cv-02188-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 4
Case No.:15-cv-02188-NC 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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff R.W. Zukin Corp. is a California corporation and owns the property at 201 

Glenwood Circle, Apartment #107, Monterey, California. Dkt. No. 1 at 12. R.W. Zukin 

Corp. brought a limited claim for unlawful detainer in Monterey County Superior Court 

against Alex Ortiz to evict him from the property and recover damages in the amount of 

$1597.00 and $53.13 per day from May 1, 2015. Id. at 12-15. Ortiz responded to the 

complaint and denied the allegations. Id. at 3-7. On May 15, 2015, Zukin removed the 

action to federal court alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is 

between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A federal district court must 

remand a removed case to state court “[i]f at any time before the final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In deciding 

whether removal was proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute against finding 

jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

that removal was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 

F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Where doubt exists regarding the right 

to remove an action, it should be resolved in favor of remand to state court. Matheson v. 

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

//

Case 5:15-cv-02188-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 4
Case No.:15-cv-02188-NC 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

III. DISCUSSION

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because R.W. Zukin Corp.’s claims arise under state law. In the absence of diversity 

jurisdiction, removal to federal court is only proper when “a federal question is presented 

on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or 

anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated 

counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). A federal court may 

dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

the action. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3). 

Here, Ortiz alleges in his notice of removal that R.W. Zukin Corporation did not 

comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, his defense to the unlawful detainer action. This 

is insufficient as a basis for removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based 

on a defense. Ortiz also appears to argue that plaintiff should have alleged its compliance 

with the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in the complaint. However, the well pleaded complaint 

rule for federal jurisdiction “makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may 

avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 

392. No federal law question is presented in the complaint, so the Court does not have 

jurisdiction under § 1331.

Additionally, the Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332 because 

the parties are not diverse. R.W. Zukin Corp. is a California corporation, and defendant 

Alex Ortiz rents the property, and has rented it for over one year, in Monterey, California. 

It appears that both parties are citizens of the same state, so jurisdiction cannot be based on 

the diversity of the parties.

IV. CONCLUSION

The facts alleged fail to show federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Because no party has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 5:15-cv-02188-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 4
Case No.:15-cv-02188-NC 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

636(c), this Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. 

Therefore, this Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to the district court and 

RECOMMENDS that the suit be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for 

Monterey County. Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02188-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 4