Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04293/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04293-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 8/2/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SKYWAY INVESTMENTS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGUSTIN ZARATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04293-HRL 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT CASE BE REMANDED

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff filed an unlawful-detainer action against Defendant in the California Superior 

Court for the County of Santa Clara. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Defendant removed the case to this court. 

The undersigned orders that this case be reassigned to a district judge and recommends that this 

case be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Discussion

A defendant may remove a case to federal court if the federal court would have original 

subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A defendant who removes a 

case has the burden to show “federal jurisdiction” supports the removal. E.g., Russell v. Aramark 

Refreshment Servs., LLC, 16-cv-00613-YGR, 2016 WL 921681, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2016). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law if the plaintiff 

alleges a claim based on federal law. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). 

Defenses or counterclaims based on federal law do not create federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Id. Original federal subject-matter jurisdiction also exists in diversity suits—cases where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the opposing parties are citizens of different states. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332. A federal court that appears to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over an ongoing 

case must remand that case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[A]ny doubt about” whether removal was 

Case 5:16-cv-04293-EJD Document 4 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

proper requires remand. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

Defendant removed this case improperly. Defendant asserts federal-question jurisdiction 

exists here because he believes Plaintiff violated a variety of federal laws in the course of 

foreclosing on his home, see Dkt. No. 1 at 2-4, but federal defenses and counterclaims do not 

establish federal jurisdiction, Vaden, 129 S. Ct. at 1272. Defendant also fails to establish diversity 

jurisdiction. Unlawful-detainer actions resolve only who has “the right to possess[]” real property 

and the damages caused by unlawful possession, e.g., Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 10-

cv-05478-PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior 

Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977)), and so the amount in controversy is equal to the amount 

of unlawful-possession damages fairly alleged in the complaint, see id. Defendant failed to file a 

copy of the complaint when he removed this case, and so he has failed to carry his burden to show 

that the amount in dispute—the fairly alleged unlawful-possession damages—exceeds $75,000. 

The undersigned therefore recommends that this case be remanded for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction.

The court advises Defendant that future attempts to remove this case may result in 

sanctions.

Conclusion

The undersigned believes removal was improper because Defendant has failed to establish 

subject-matter jurisdiction. The undersigned therefore orders that this case be reassigned to a 

district judge and recommends that this case be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

The court advises Defendant that he has 14 days to file objections to this report and 

recommendation after he has been served with his copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED, REPORTED, AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: 8/2/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04293-EJD Document 4 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2