Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01954/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01954-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nick Fordham
Defendant
Bruce Marshall
Defendant
Peter Michon
Plaintiff
April Stewart
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER MICHON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRUCE MARSHALL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-01954-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

On August 18, 2016, pro se defendants Bruce Marshall, April Stewart and Nick 

Fordham removed this unlawful detainer action from Placer County Superior Court, and moved 

to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. As explained below, the court REMANDS the 

case to the Placer County Superior Court and DENIES the motions to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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 bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

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

jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time before final 

Case 2:16-cv-01954-KJM-GGH Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Placer County Superior 

Court. The form complaint filed in the state court is for unlawful detainer only. ECF No. 1. 

Defendants ground the removal on the court’s federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “[f]ederal 

question exists because [d]efendant’s [sic] Answer, a pleading[,] depend [sic] on the 

determination of [d]efendant’s [sic] rights and [p]laintiff’s duties under federal law.” Id. at 2. 

However, plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading 

solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Defendants have not shown any federal question arises from plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants’ 

assertion is best characterized as a defense or a potential counterclaim; neither of which can be 

considered in evaluating whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 

556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated 

counterclaim”); Valles, 410 F.3d at 1075 (“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 and is 

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”); Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,145 

F.3d 320, 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

Accordingly, because plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not provide a 

basis for federal question jurisdiction, and defendants’ answer cannot provide the basis for 

removal jurisdiction here, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 

single state-law claim for unlawful detainer. This case is REMANDED to Placer County 

Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 22, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01954-KJM-GGH Document 6 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2