Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02400/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02400-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF P. CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02400-MEJ 

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

REASSIGN CASE WITH 

RECOMMENDATION FOR REMAND

INTRODUCTION

On May 29, 2015, Defendant Jeff P. Clarke removed this unlawful detainer action from 

Sonoma County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action does not arise under 

federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Thus, as Defendant did not yet consent to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a 

district judge with the recommendation that the case be remanded to Sonoma County Superior 

Court. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Chen-Cheng 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).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the

Case 4:15-cv-02400-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 5
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

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or

the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place where such action is pending.” However, the removal statutes are construed restrictively 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 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 

653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

Here, the face of the Complaint, which asserts only one state law claim for unlawful 

detainer, does not provide any ground for removal. An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does 

not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 

2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 

4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). 

Further, even if Defendants alleged diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff brought this action in 

California, as the property at issue is located in the state. Where diversity is cited as a basis for 

jurisdiction, removal is not permitted if a defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the 

plaintiff originally brought the action, even if the opposing parties are diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 4:15-cv-02400-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 5
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

1441(b); Homesales, Inc. v. Amora, 2012 WL 2061923, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (stating that a civil action “removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction 

under section 1332(a) . . . 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”); Lincoln Prop. Co. 

v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005)) (granting plaintiff’s motion to remand unlawful detainer case 

removed by defendants because, inter alia, defendants were California citizens and action had 

originally been brought in California state court). 

Moreover, the amount in controversy requirement does not appear to be met because the 

damages claim in this case is under $10,000. In unlawful detainer actions, the amount of damages 

sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in 

controversy, and, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 86(a)(4), an unlawful 

detainer is a limited civil action where the “whole amount of damages claimed” must be “twentyfive thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 86(a)(4). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a 

district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions only where the amount in controversy, 

exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000. Thus, even where an unlawful detainer action 

involves foreclosure on a mortgage that exceeds $75,000, the amount of the mortgage does not 

satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v. Heredia, 2012 WL 

4747157, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (holding, inter alia, that the amount in controversy 

requirement was not met even where the mortgage was valued at over $75,000 as per Deed of 

Trust).

Finally, an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer 

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Ca. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); 

Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). “A case may not be removed to federal court on 

the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.” 

ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 

F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 

2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, 

even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 

Case 4:15-cv-02400-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Thus, any anticipated defense, such as a claim under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 

Pub.L. No. 111–22, § 702, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009), is not a valid ground for removal. See e.g. 

Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. Montoya, 2011 WL 5508926, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011); SD 

Coastline LP v. Buck, 2010 WL 4809661, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Nov.19, 2010); Wescom, 2010 WL 

4916578, at 2–3; Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. 

March 29, 2010).

CONCLUSION

As jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action is lacking, the undersigned finds that 

remand is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case 

to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be remanded to Sonoma County Superior 

Court. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to

this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: June 2, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02400-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF P. CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02400-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 2, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jeff P. Clarke

2717 Creekside Rd.

Santa Rosa, CA 95405 

Dated: June 2, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 4:15-cv-02400-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 5