Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02916/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02916-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Crisafi FLP
Plaintiff
Victor Garcia
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CRISAFI FLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTOR GARCIA, Does 1–10, inclusive

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02916-JCS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING MOTION TO REMAND 

TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 3

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff The Crisafi FLP (“Crisafi”) brought an unlawful detainer action 

in Alameda County Superior Court against Defendant Victor Garcia. Garcia, proceeding pro se, 

removed the case to this Court on May 31, 2016. Crisafi has filed a Motion to Remand (“Motion”)

asking the Court to remand the action to state court on the grounds that there is no federal jurisdiction, 

either under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or § 1332 (diversity), and the removal was untimely 

under 28 U.S.C 1447(c). Crisalfi filed a consent to magistrate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) 

but Garcia has neither consented to magistrate jurisdiction nor requested reassignment and the deadline 

to do so has passed. Garcia also did not file an Opposition to the Motion by the June 16, 2016 

deadline. Accordingly, the Court will reassign this case to a United States district judge with the 

recommendation that the Court GRANT Crisalfi’s Motion and remand this action to the California

Superior Court for Alameda County. The motion hearing set for July 8, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated.

II. ANALYSIS

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling within 

their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have 

been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are construed 

restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 

Case 4:16-cv-02916-JSW Document 10 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, 

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). Any doubts as to removability 

should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 

1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

Garcia’s Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶ 6.1 

Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either 

where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law 

necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 

F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “The presence or absence of federal-question 

jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction 

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 

complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the 

complaint—it is “settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. Defendant’s Notice of 

Removal states that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend [sic] 

on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice of 

Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a federal defense presented in the Answer provides no basis for 

removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The undersigned therefore finds no basis for federal 

jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be remanded.

Further, Garcia’s notice of removal is untimely. “The notice of removal of a civil action or 

proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or 

 

1 Garcia has not invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and there is no 

indication that diversity jurisdiction applies. All parties appear to be citizens of California. 

Further, Garcia does not allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Crisafi alleges 

past rent due amounting to only $4,864.00. Notice of Removal, Exhibit A, p. 3. 

Case 4:16-cv-02916-JSW Document 10 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or 

proceeding tis based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such 

initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, 

whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defects in removal procedures are waived unless 

challenged by timely motion for remand in the federal court, filed within thirty days after the filing of 

the notice of removal in federal court. 28 U.S.C § 1447(c); Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (courts may not remand sua sponte for procedural defects, including defects in removal 

procedures, after thirty day limit). Plaintiff timely challenged Garcia’s motion for remand on this 

ground. See Motion for Remand (filed June 2, 2016). Garcia was served on March 28, 2016. His 

notice of removal was filed May 31, 2016, falling outside the thirty days allotted him. See Notice of 

Removal. Garcia’s notice of removal is therefore untimely.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that Motion be GRANTED and that 

this action be REMANDED to the California Superior Court for Alameda County. The case will be 

reassigned to a United States district judge for action on this recommendation and any further 

proceedings. Any party may file objections to this recommendation no later than fourteen days after 

being served with a copy of this Report. 

Garcia, who is unrepresented, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project’s 

Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses for assistance. The 

San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th floor at 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in Room 470-S on the 4th floor at 

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made by calling (415) 782-8982 or 

signing up in the appointment book located outside either office. Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can 

provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 20, 2016 ______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-02916-JSW Document 10 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 3