Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01025/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

*E-Filed: March 12, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFELIA AREGUIN; et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C15-01025 HRL

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED 

TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE REMAND TO STATE COURT

Maria Elena Cohara removed this unlawful detainer action from the Monterey County 

Superior Court. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this matter be 

remanded to state court because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

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

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly 

construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal was 

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)). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be 

Case 5:15-cv-01025-EJD Document 3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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

remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Cohara fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts have 

original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 

556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy 

this requirement. Id. Here, the complaint presents a claim arising only under state law. It does 

not allege any federal claims whatsoever. Allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the 

complaint cannot provide this court with federal question jurisdiction.

Nor does this court find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have 

jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§1332. The complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, 

unlawful detainer actions involve the right to possession alone, not title to the property. So, the 

fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. MOAB Inv. Grp., 

LLC v. Moreno, No. C14-0092EMC, 2014 WL 523092, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell 

Real Estate Inv. LLC v. Bracho, No. C12-02774RMW, 2012 WL 2906762, at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 

13, 2012). 

There being no basis for federal jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, the removal 

of this case was improper. Defendant is advised that future attempts to remove this matter may 

result in sanctions.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Monterey County 

///

///

Case 5:15-cv-01025-EJD Document 3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Superior Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated: March 12, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:15-cv-01025-EJD Document 3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4
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

C15-01025 HRL Notice will be mailed to:

Kayo Mansori-Tompkins

The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation

2955 Main St., 2nd Floor

Irvine, CA 92614

Maria Elena Cohara

348 Chardonnay Drive

Salinas, CA 93906

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:15-cv-01025-EJD Document 3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4