Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01826/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01826-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

DOMINICK M. GUARNERI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01826-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

REMANDED TO STATE COURT

Plaintiff Dominick M. Guarneri, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action by filing a 

document entitled “Verified Complaint” and “Removal of State Case #BAC1400863.” (Dkt. No. 

1.) Mr. Guarneri appears to be attempting to remove an unlawful detainer action filed against him 

in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside. Mr. Guarneri is thus the defendant in the state 

court action, not the plaintiff as he otherwise contends.

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises 

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal 

law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. 

Case 4:15-cv-01826-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded 

back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

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

Here, Mr. Guarneri bases removal on both federal question jurisdiction and diversity 

jurisdiction. The removed complaint, however, makes only a state-law claim for unlawful 

detainer.

1

 Thus, that Mr. Guarneri advances certain claims in his Notice of Removal arising under 

federal law is of no moment because “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Terrenal, No. 12–5540, 2013 WL 

124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for asserting federal claim jurisdiction” 

where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer”). With respect to 

diversity jurisdiction, Mr. Guarneri has not established that the parties are diverse or that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Instead, the face of the state court complaint states that 

the amount demanded is less than $10,000. See Federal National Mortgage Association v. 

Dominick M Guarneri et al., No. 14-1997 TJH (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1-1 at p. 8 (the caption states 

that the “[a]mount demanded does not exceed $10,000.”). Further, even were Mr. Guarneri’s

contentions as to federal jurisdiction maintainable, he appears to be a citizen of California as the 

underlying complaint alleges that he occupies property in California. The removal therefore 

contravenes the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) that precludes removal where any defendant is a 

 

1 Mr. Guarneri did not attach the state court complaint to his notice of removal despite 28 U.S.C. §

1446(a)’s requirement that he do so. The Court thus takes judicial notice of a prior notice of 

removal filed by Mr. Guarneri in the District Court for the Central District of California. See 

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Dominick M Guarneri, et al., No. 14-1997 TJH (C.D. 

Cal.). The Court may take judicial notice of a fact “that is not subject to reasonable dispute 

because it ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Further, a court may “take judicial notice of 

court filings and other matters of public record” which are “readily verifiable.” Reyn’s Pasta 

Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). Mr. Guarneri attached the state 

court complaint to his notice of removal in the prior action in the Central District. Federal 

National Mortgage Association v. Dominick M Guarneri et al., No. 14-1997 TJH (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 

No. 1-1 (filed September 25, 2014). The complaint bears the same Riverside County Superior 

Court case number as on Mr. Guarneri’s Complaint here: BAC 1400863 and is captioned 

“Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Following Foreclosure Sale Action Based on Code of Civil 

Procedure Section 1161a.” (Id. at p. 8.) 

Case 4:15-cv-01826-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

citizen of the state in which the action was brought (the “no local defendant rule”).

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Mr. Guarneri to SHOW CAUSE as to why 

this action should not be remanded to state court. Mr. Guarneri shall respond to this Order in 

writing by May 27, 2015. Failure to respond will result in remand of this case to the Riverside 

County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01826-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 3