Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05318/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05318-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-05318 NC 

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

DUKE PARTNERS II, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO MOSQUEDA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05318 NC 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IFP 

APPLICATION AND TO GRANT 

MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE 

COURT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 7

Defendant Mosqueda filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the underlying complaint, plaintiff Duke 

Partners II, LLC, brought a limited action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively 

out of state law. Duke moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that no federal 

court jurisdiction existed. Dkt. No. 7. Mosqueda did not respond to the motion.

Duke consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, but Mosqueda has not 

responded to the Court’s request to file a consent or declination. Dkt. No. 6. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS that this case be reassigned to a district court judge. The Court 

RECOMMENDS that the case be remanded to state court and that Mosqueda’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

Case 5:16-cv-05318-LHK Document 10 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-05318 NC 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

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is 

between citizens of different states,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, removal to federal court is only proper 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). “Federal jurisdiction cannot be 

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon 

an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

A federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the action. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); 

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Here, Duke states that the amount in controversy is $10,000 and that all parties are 

citizens of California, so no diversity exists. Dkt. No. 7 at 4. Mosqueda states that the 

unlawful detainer action deprived him of rights under federal law. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. This is 

insufficient as a basis for removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on 

a defense. Thus, the Court concludes that no subject matter jurisdiction exists, and the 

case must be remanded to the County of Monterey Superior Court.

Additionally, Mosqueda seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, but has failed to fully 

complete the proper form. Dkt. No. 3. For example, Mosqueda has not answered whether 

he is married, has bank accounts, or any assets. Thus, the Court cannot determine if 

waiving the filing fee is appropriate, so the application should be denied. 

Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The 

Court reminds Mosqueda that “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just 

costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Presently, the Court is unaware whether plaintiff has incurred any 

expenses as a result of the removal.

Case 5:16-cv-05318-LHK Document 10 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-05318 NC 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05318-LHK Document 10 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3