Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04053/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04053-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIA ELBA DOMINGUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04053-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Maria Elba Dominguez (“Defendant”) removed the instant unlawful detainer 

action originally filed in Monterey County Superior Court by Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.

(“Plaintiffs”). See Docket Item No. 1. According to the state court Complaint, Plaintiff purchased 

certain real property located in Salinas, California, at a Trustee’s Sale on May 28, 2015. See id.

As is its obligation, the court has reviewed this action to determine whether federal 

jurisdiction exists. See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). It does 

not. Accordingly, this action will be remanded to the state court from which it originated.

II. DISCUSSION

Removal jurisdiction is a creation of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely

from the statutory authorization of Congress.”). Only those state court actions that could have 

been originally filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise 

expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.”); 

Case 5:15-cv-04053-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04053-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that 

originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by defendant.”). 

Accordingly, the removal statute provides two basic ways in which a state court action may be 

removed to federal court: (1) the case presents a federal question, or (2) the case is between 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 

(b). 

It falls upon the removing defendant to show the basis for federal jurisdiction. Nishimoto 

v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction 

statutes are strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 

100, 108 (1941).

Here, the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant removed this action on the basis of 

federal question jurisdiction. When removal is based on the presence of a federal question, the 

court looks to the face of a well-pleaded complaint to determine whether a cause of action is

created by federal law or whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the 

resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 

486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 

463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). “[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded 

complaint that there is a federal question.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 

1996). The complaint as it existed at time of removal dictates whether removal jurisdiction is 

proper. Libhart, 592 F.2d at 1065.

Here, the original complaint asserts only one cause of action for unlawful detainer, which 

does not arise under federal law and cannot support federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. 

Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. C 11-00451 WHA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44818, at *1, 2011 

WL 1465678 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. C 11-1894 PJH, 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53643, at *2, 2011 WL 1754053 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit 

Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130517, at *2, 2010 WL 

4916578 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). That being the case, a federal question does not appear from 

Case 5:15-cv-04053-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04053-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

the face of the complaint. Any actual or anticipated cross-claims and counterclaims or any 

potential notice violations under the “Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 [12 U.S.C. § 5220]” are 

irrelevant to this analysis since those claims are not contained in the original complaint. See

Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 107 S. Ct. 1542, 95 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1987) (holding 

jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint); see also Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 

F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (2009) (holding jurisdiction cannot rest on actual or anticipated defense).

Removal is also improper based on diversity jurisdiction had Defendant asserted it because

this case was originally filed in a California state court and, based on her address, Defendant is a 

citizen of California. Thus, even assuming the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy 

requirement is met (which does not appear to be the case), 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) prohibits removal 

by Defendant on that basis.1

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action. Accordingly, the Clerk shall remand the case to Monterey County Superior Court and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

 

1

“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) 

of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 

defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Case 5:15-cv-04053-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 3