Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00338/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00338-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEDGEWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAO SAELEE,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0338 JAM CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal 

question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only 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). However, the exhibits attached to the removal 

petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, 

Case 2:15-cv-00338-JAM-CKD Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

and the state court action is titled as such. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally

Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be 

summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 17, 2015

4 wedgewood.remud

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00338-JAM-CKD Document 4 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2