Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00484/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00484-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

U.S. BANK N.A.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AUXILIA DELGADILLO,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-0484 MHP

ORDER OF REMAND

This action was removed to this court from the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa

by notice of removal filed on February 2, 2010. The removing defendant appears to be a California

resident. She bases her removal on federal question jurisdiction stating that such jurisdiction is

premised on the federal civil rights laws, specifically 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Defendant has it

wrong on several counts. First of all, the underlying action is not based on federal civil rights law. 

It is an action for unlawful detainer. The mere fact that plaintiff wishes to raise a defense of

discrimination under federal law does not convert the underlying action to a claim not presented on

the face of the complaint that was filed in state court. Furthermore, even if defendant were making a

claim under section 1983, such a claim is not available under section 1983 against a private party. 

The opposing party in this case is a bank and not a state actor. 

Defendant does not allege in her notice of removal or otherwise that this is a diversity action

for which this court might have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. Nor could she make a

claim for removability on the basis of diversity jurisdiction since the removal statute at 28 U.S.C.

section 1441(b) provides that a diversity action is removable “only if none of the parties in

interest...served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 

Case 3:10-cv-00484-MHP Document 4 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In a removal action this court’s jurisdiction is determined by the claims asserted in the

underlying complaint, not by defenses that may be raised in the notice of removal. A review of the

face of the complaint reveals no federal questions. The complaint is for claims based purely in state

law. This is a straight forward unlawful detainer case. If plaintiff believes that she has been

discriminated against on an unlawful basis she may be able to assert this as a defense in the state

court. She cannot pursue it here. California statutes are replete with anti-discrimination provisions

of which she could avail herself if such a defense is available under California’s unlawful detainer

laws.

 The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Indeed, “[f]ederal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)

places the burden on the court to always be mindful of its jurisdiction and if at any time during the

pendency of the action it determines that jurisdiction is lacking the court must dismiss the action. 

This Circuit has also held that a court may raise the question of jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v.

Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, there is no invocation of a federal question on the face of the complaint. Consequently,

since federal question jurisdiction does not appear on the face of plaintiffs’ complaint and since

there appears to be some urgency in the underlying case over which this court has no jurisdiction,

this court sua sponte orders remand of the above-entitled action. It is not clear from whom or where

plaintiff received the advice to file the notice of removal and proceed in this fashion. In any event,

she was ill-served by such advice.

This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa and the

Clerk of Court shall transmit forthwith a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of that Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:10-cv-00484-MHP Document 4 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2