Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02483/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02483-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN NAKASHIMA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EMILIE R. BURTON, KENNETH R. 

BURTON JR., and DOES 1 to 5, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-02483-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

 Defendants Emilie Burton and Kenneth Burton, Jr. (collectively “defendants”) 

removed this unlawful detainer action from San Joaquin County Superior Court on October 18, 

2017. ECF No. 1. Defendants also move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF Nos. 3-4. As 

explained below, the court remands this case to the San Joaquin County Superior Court for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction and denies defendants’ IFP request as moot. 

 Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original 

subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A federal court has “federal 

question” subject-matter jurisdiction where the complaint is predicated on a claim or right arising 

under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To properly 

invoke federal jurisdiction, the basis for federal jurisdiction must be ascertainable from the face of 

the complaint, and cannot derive from an anticipated defense in the case. Louisville & Nashville 

R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). 

Case 2:16-cv-02483-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 11/01/16 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

 If a case is improperly removed from state to federal court, the federal court has an 

independent responsibility to remand that case back to state court. This responsibility derives 

from the mandate in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to remand a case “[i]f at any time before final judgment 

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

Moreover, it is the district court’s “duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed 

action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 

Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts construe removal statutes 

strictly against removal and place the burden on a defendant to demonstrate that removal is 

proper. Moore–Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241,1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus 

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The ‘strong presumption’ against removal 

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”)). 

Here, defendants assert this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441. Notice Removal 2, ECF No. 1. The duty thus lies with the court to determine if federal 

jurisdiction in fact adheres. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants do not assert that the complaint 

itself raises a federal question. Id. Instead, defendants assert that a federal question exists 

because “Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights and 

Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice Removal 2 (verbatim transcription). However, 

removal cannot be based only on a defense that raises a federal question. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 54 (2009) (“federal-court jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of a 

defense or counterclaim”); Nationstar, LLC v. Graves, No. 1:12-CV-02018-AWI, 2012 WL 

6720368, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2012) (citations omitted) (remanding unlawful detainer action 

sua sponte). Defendants fail to establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 

 The court finds that defendant has not shown any proper basis for removal. Thus, 

the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded and defendants’ motion for 

in forma pauperis status is moot. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-02483-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 11/01/16 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is REMANDED to San Joaquin County Superior Court. 

2. The motion for in forma pauperis status is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: October 31, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02483-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 3