Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00550/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00550-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONTON CONSTRUCTION INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY MICHAEL BITTERS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-00550-KJM-CKD PS 

ORDER 

On March 15, 2016, defendant Gary Bitters, proceeding pro se, removed this 

unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Mr. Bitters also 

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, the court 

REMANDS the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and DENIES as moot Mr. Bitter’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

A. Legal Standard 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

Case 2:16-cv-00550-KJM-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/21/16 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

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. 

Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when 

the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 

Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question 

jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-in-citizenship jurisdiction where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount 

in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction is upon the party seeking removal . . . .” (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & 

Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921))). 

B. Discussion 

Mr. Bitters’ Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction 

under § 1331 “because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of 

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The form complaint 

plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer under California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 1161a, which is a matter of state law. See Compl., ECF No. 1, Ex. “A.” 

Case 2:16-cv-00550-KJM-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/21/16 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

As stated above, Mr. Bitters’ answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for 

federal question jurisdiction. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint 

and may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy 

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show 

that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the 

action. 

Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint 

seeks damages of $30.00 a day for each day after January 15, 2016 and costs of suit. Compl., 

ECF No. 1, Ex. “A.” Because these damages are not likely to total more than $75,000, and Mr. 

Bitters has provided no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in controversy, the court 

does not have diversity jurisdiction over the action. 

II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it appears to 

lack subject matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior 

Court. Cf. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a 

case should be remanded to state court.”). As a result, defendant’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is moot. 

III. CONCLUSION 

It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court. 

2. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 21, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00550-KJM-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 3