Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01883-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Truman Rishard
Plaintiff
Michael Woodke
Defendant
Teri Woodke
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

TRUMAN RISHARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL WOODKE and TERI 

WOODKE,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01883-MCE-DAD

ORDER

On September 8, 2015, Defendants Michael Woodke and Teri Woodke, 

proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the 

Sacramento County Superior Court.

1

 ECF No. 1. 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., 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, Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 

 1 Despite Defendants’ 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 2:15-cv-01883-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/09/15 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

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1 at 2. However, a review of the 

Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, Plaintiff 

alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8. 

“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 one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At 

most, Defendants argue that they have a defense under federal law. “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 under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.2

///

///

///

///

 2 Nor have Defendants established that this Court has diversity jurisdiction, since the Notice of 

Removal does not establish diversity of the parties or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, No. CV 12-01641 GAF (CMx), 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in 

unlawful detainer actions is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01883-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/09/15 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This 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. 15UD05065) in the proof of service.

3. Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 3) are

DENIED as moot.

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

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

following unlawful detainer action: No. 15UD05065. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01883-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 3