Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00520/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00520-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBIE WHITCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASON MONTOYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00520-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING AND REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Defendants Jason and Carol Montoya, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed

this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Defendants invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Given the jurisdictional issue apparent on the face of the Complaint, the 

Court ordered Defendants to show cause (“OSC”) as why this case should not be remanded to the 

Contra Costa County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6.) 

Although the Court ordered Defendants to respond in writing by February 20, 2019, Defendants 

failed to do so—by the deadline, or otherwise. Because the parties have not yet filed a consent or 

declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to REASSIGN this 

action to a district court judge. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that the 

case be REMANDED.

DISCUSSION

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” 

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 7 Filed 02/27/19 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

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. 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, Defendants base removal on federal question jurisdiction. Despite Defendants’

argument to the contrary, the removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful

detainer. (Compare Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 5 with Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Defendants’ additional contention that

federal question jurisdiction exists because the demurrer “depend[s] on the determination of

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law” is unavailing. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 10.)

“[F]ederal 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, 393 (1987)

(“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal

defense[.]”). Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold

of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 6

(stating that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000).

In addition, because the applications to proceed in forma pauperis that accompanied the 

Notice of Removal were both completed in the name of Jason Montoya, but the information in the 

applications was different and the signatures were not the same, the Court denied the applications 

to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to renewal. Defendants, however, have neither 

resubmitted applications to proceed in forma pauperis nor submitted the filing fee. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court 

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 7 Filed 02/27/19 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

judge REMAND this action to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. 

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the district court’s ultimate Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 7 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 3