Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

VIMALA PATEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARQUESIA WHITE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01896-MCE-KJN-PS

ORDER

On July 13, 2016, Defendant MARQUESIA WHITE (“Defendant”), proceeding in 

pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action, filed by Plaintiff VIMALA PATEL 

(“Plaintiff”) from the Sacramento County Superior Court.

1

 ECF No. 1. While Defendant 

utilized a template for filing an initial complaint, her papers make it clear that she in fact 

seeks to transfer a preexisting unlawful detainer proceeding already pending in state 

court.

This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand 

sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden 

of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal 

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 

 1 Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 

a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01896-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 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

2

846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must 

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendants have

failed to meet that burden. 

Defendant’s removal request is premised on the argument that this Court has 

“federal question” jurisdiction. Defendant makes no effort to identify the basis for 

claiming such jurisdiction except to attach a demurrer she filed in state court that 

exclusively references state law. Additionally, the demurrer makes it clear that the only 

claim pursued by Plaintiff in the state court proceeding is for unlawful detainer. ECF No. 

1 at p. 8. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 

the 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 

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim, by Defendant’s own admission, is for unlawful detainer

under state law. Even were Defendant to argue that she has defenses available under 

federal law, which she has not, that still would be insufficient to justify removal. “A case 

may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 

defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the 

defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC 

v. Dep’t. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

///

Case 2:16-cv-01896-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly:

1. The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. 16UD04884) in the proof of service.

3. Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED 

as moot.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD04884. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 12, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01896-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3