Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00238-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, as Trustee for New Century 

Home Equity Trust Series 2005-B Asset 

Backed Pass through, Certificates, by 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, its Attorney 

in Fact,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM WOLFE and TAMARA WOLFE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-238 LJO BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE REMANDED TO THE FRESNO 

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Defendant, Tamara Wolfe ("Defendant”), filed a Notice of Removal of an unlawful 

detainer action brought against her in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). Defendant’s papers 

fail to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is recommended that the case be 

remanded to the Fresno Superior Court.

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00238-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

Removal

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district 

court has original jurisdiction. Catepillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). The removal 

statute provides: 

Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil 

action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 

defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for 

the district and division embracing the place where such action is 

pending. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction 

and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The removing party bears the 

burden to prove propriety of removal. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-685 (9th Cir. 

2006); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. 

Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls 

to the party invoking the statute”). A district court may remand an action to state court for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction can be established in three ways: 1) a federal 

question is presented, 2) diversity of citizenship is established (the matter in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 and is between citizens of different states), or 3) the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. 

United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). As discussed below, Defendant has

failed to establish that federal jurisdiction is proper. The United States is not a party to this 

action. Similarly, Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction is proper because no federal question 

has been presented and diversity jurisdiction does not exist.

Case 1:15-cv-00238-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Federal Question Jurisdiction

District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Determination of federal question 

jurisdiction “is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish 

“either that: (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that, (2) plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily 

depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. 

v. An Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the 

plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything in anticipation of 

avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” California v. United States, 

215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, “a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal 

defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that 

the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 

Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1278 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question 

lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under 

federal law.”). 

Here, the crux of Defendant’s claims is that Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action violated 

several provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-

2610. However, this allegation does not establish this Court’s jurisdiction in a removal proceeding, as 

this claim was not pled in the underlying complaint Plaintiff filed in state court. In other words,

Defendant cannot raise new claims as a defense to Plaintiff’s complaint in the underlying state action 

to establish this Court’s jurisdiction in a removal proceeding.

Case 1:15-cv-00238-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

In this case, the complaint seeks unlawful detainer relief pursuant to Cal. Civ. Pro. 1161a

which is governed by California state law. Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at 

*6 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly the province of state court”); Deutsche 

Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at * 2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“the 

complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state 

law”). Therefore, this unlawful detainer action fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction and is not 

properly before this Court.

Diversity Jurisdiction

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) establishes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and provides in pertinent 

part: 

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between –

(1) citizens of different States . . . 

Here, no diversity jurisdiction can be established because Plaintiff's complaint seeks less than 

$10,000, as stated prominently on the face of the Complaint. (Doc. 1, pg. 7). In unlawful detainer

actions, the amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, 

determines the amount in controversy. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 86(a)(4) (“The following proceedings 

are limited civil cases: ... (4) Proceedings in forcible entry or forcible or unlawful detainer where the 

whole amount of damages claimed is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.”); See also, 

Litton Loan Servicing v. Villegas, 2011 WL 204322 * 2 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2011) (citations omitted)

(In unlawful detainer actions, courts have noted that the right to possession alone is involved – not the 

title to the property). Thus, an unlawful detainer action must be filed as a limited civil case where the 

total amount of damages claimed does not exceed $25,000.00. Cal. Civ. Pro. §§ 85(a), 86(a)(4). 

Whether an action qualifies as a limited civil case is determined from the prayer for relief (demand) in 

plaintiff's complaint. Cal. Civ. Pro. §§ 85, 88; Engebretson & Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 125 Cal.App.3d 

Case 1:15-cv-00238-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

436, 444–45, 178 Cal.Rptr. 77 (1981). In this case, the Complaint seeks rental damages in the amount 

of $60.00 per day from expiration of the Notice to Vacate through the date of judgment. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff cannot establish the $75,000.00 needed for diversity jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ papers fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be REMANDED to the Fresno County 

Superior Court.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B). Within fourteen (14) days 

of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and 

recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will 

review the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the United 

States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F. 3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F. 2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00238-LJO-BAM Document 6 Filed 03/10/15 Page 5 of 5