Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01814/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01814-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gloria Y. Clayton
Defendant
Community Fund LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

COMMUNITY FUND LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLORIA Y. CLAYTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01814-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 1, 2

Defendant Gloria Y. Clayton (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Young invokes federal subject matter 

jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and asserts that removal is proper 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. As neither party has consented to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive 

ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a District 

Judge. 

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the single claim in the 

complaint arises exclusively under state law and the amount in controversy is less than $10,000. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court REMAND this action to state 

court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Community Fund, LLC (“Plaintiff”) initiated this residential unlawful detainer 

action in Contra Costa County Superior Court on February 26, 2015. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) The 

complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the owner of property located at 35 Las Moradas Circle, San 

Case 4:15-cv-01814-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Pablo, CA 94806. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 14, 2013, Defendant agreed 

to rent the premises for a one-year term at a rate of $1,400.00 per month. (Id.) Defendant signed a 

written lease agreement with Plaintiff’s agent. (Id.) The state court complaint alleges that a copy 

of this written agreement was included as an exhibit, but no agreement is included on the docket 

for this case. (See generally id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant has failed to surrender 

possession of the property despite being personally served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit 

on February 20, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks possession of the property, forfeiture of the lease 

agreement, holdover damages at a rate of $46.67 per day, and all costs and fees incurred in this 

action deemed just and proper by the court, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 7.)

Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint on March 24, 2015 on the grounds that the 

notice to pay rent or quit failed to include the information required by law and therefore no action 

for unlawful detainer lies. (See id. at 8-9.) According to Defendant, the Superior Court did not 

sustain her demurrer. (Id. at 2.) Defendant removed the case to federal court on April 22, 2015. 

(Dkt. No. 1.) 

DISCUSSION

A. IFP Application

Defendant moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 

2.) The Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause that she is unable to pay the filing fee 

associated with removing a complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to 

proceed IFP.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Having granted Defendant’s request to proceed IFP, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) the 

Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987). Even aside from Section 1915 review, the 

Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand a case sua sponte for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving that subject matter 

jurisdiction is proper. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006). For the 

Case 4:15-cv-01814-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

reasons explained below, Defendant has failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction in 

this case.

Defendant alleges that removal is proper under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Defendant’s removal of Plaintiff’s 

unlawful detainer action to federal court lacks merit because the court does not have subject matter 

or diversity jurisdiction over the claims. It is well settled that federal courts do not have federal 

question jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, where federal law does not create the cause of 

action and the plaintiff’s right to relief as to its claims does not depend on a resolution of a 

question of federal law. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Chavez, No. C 11-5129 PSG, 2011 WL 

6760349, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) (citations omitted), report & recommendation adopted by

2011 WL 6749057 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2011); see also, e.g., Eden Housing Mgmt. v. Muhammad, 

No. C 07-4325 SBA, 2007 WL 4219397, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007) (no federal question 

jurisdiction on the face of an unlawful detainer complaint); Citibank N.A. v. Ortiz, No. 08-cv-1301 

LAB, 2008 WL 4771932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) (same). 

Although Defendant alleges in her removal papers that her demurrer to the unlawful 

detainer at issue relates to violations of her rights and Plaintiff’s duties arising under federal law 

(see Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3), “removability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counter-claim 

presenting a federal question.” Eden Housing Mgmt., 2007 WL 4219397, at *2 (quoting Takeda v. 

Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2s 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985)); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Neither allegations or affirmative defenses in an 

Answer nor in the petition for removal can create federal jurisdiction.”); see, e.g., Chavez, 2011 

WL 6760349, at *1 (remanding unlawful detainer action where defendant sought to establish 

federal question jurisdiction through federal statutory counterclaim); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. 

Corp. v. Pinzon, No. 12-cv-03450 NC, 2012 WL 3527232, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2012), report 

& recommendation adopted by 2012 WL 3536761 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2012). In other words, 

because the complaint on its face presents no federal question, and a defendant cannot bootstrap 

federal jurisdiction by pleading a defense or counterclaim, the instant unlawful detainer action 

must be remanded for determination by the state court. 

Case 4:15-cv-01814-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

The Court further finds that there is no diversity jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s unlawful 

detainer action, which was filed in the superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less 

than $10,000 in controversy. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) For the reasons already discussed, any 

damages related to Defendant’s purported federal rights counterclaim is not part of the amount-incontroversy calculation. See Chavez, 2011 WL 6760349, at *1. In addition, only non-resident 

defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Spencer v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any 

“local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action cannot be removed by 

that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 

628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Here, the complaint alleges that Defendant resides at the subject 

property, located in San Pablo, California, and is therefore a citizen of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 

6.) As Clayton is a “local” defendant, removal is improper on this basis as well.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Clayton’s IFP application. However, as the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court recommends that this action be REMANDED to the 

Contra Costa County Superior Court. Any party may object to this recommendation within 

fourteen days of the filing date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01814-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 4