Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00434-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ESA Management, LLC
Plaintiff
Laura Gerfin
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESA Management, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Laura Gerfin,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 

to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 

Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 

retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 

Judge.”).

On February 25, 2020 Defendant Laura Gerfin filed a Notice 

of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from the 

Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 

Case 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/27/20 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

For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 

to Sacramento County Superior Court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action 

to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 

case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a 

defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 

a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 

initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendant seeking 

removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, Defendant does not cite any basis for the Court’s

jurisdiction.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they lack 

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 

can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 

Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 

diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 

the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 

(1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction 

over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 

Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 

Case 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/27/20 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

Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be 

more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction 

it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 

1988).

The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 

be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 

Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 

2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 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).

In this case, Defendant is unable to establish jurisdiction 

before this Court because the complaint filed in the state court, 

20UD00400, contains a single cause of action for unlawful 

detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 

province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal 

subject-matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 

notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest 

upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill 

Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 

defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 

federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 

Case 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/27/20 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

and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”).

In determining the presence or absence of federal 

jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 

applies, “which provides that federal 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, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 

established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 

Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 

First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 

that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 

law.”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim for 

unlawful detainer. The face of a properly-pled state law 

unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint avoids federal question 

jurisdiction. Furthermore, Defendant has not met her burden of 

showing the Court has diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s 

complaint sets the amount in controversy as less than $10,000. 

Notice of Removal at 3. Subject to a “good faith” requirement, 

“the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls.” St. Paul Mercury 

Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-290 (1938). 

Defendant failed to show Plaintiff’s pleading of the amount in 

controversy was made in bad faith. Consequently, she has failed 

to show the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the suit.

Case 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/27/20 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

The Court REMANDS this case to Sacramento County Superior 

Court for all future proceedings. Defendant’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is DENIED as moot.

Dated: February 27, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez________________

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 5