Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04595/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Quiroga
Defendant
Monica Quiroga
Defendant
Venkat Ramesh
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

VENKAT RAMESH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA QUIROGA, ENRIQUE 

QUIROGA,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04595-MEJ 

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION

On August 16, 2016, Defendants Monica Quiroga and Enrique Quiroga (“Defendants”)

removed this unlawful detainer action from Contra Costa County Superior Court (Notice of 

Removal, Dkt. No. 1) and each filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Appls., Dkt. 

No. 3, 4). However, as jurisdiction is lacking, this case should be remanded to state court. As 

Defendants did not yet consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of 

Court to REASSIGN this case to a district judge with the RECOMMENDATION that the case 

be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court and Defendants’ In Forma Pauperis 

Applications be denied as moot.

LEGAL STANDARD

Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived. Billingsley v. C.I.R., 868 

F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the 

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate, i.e., those involving diversity of 

citizenship or a federal question, or those to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A case involving federal question arises 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case involving 

Case 3:16-cv-04595-VC Document 7 Filed 08/26/16 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

diversity of citizenship has a matter in controversy that exceeds $75,000 and is either between 

citizens of different States, citizens of a foreign state and citizens of a State, or a foreign state and 

citizens of a State. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Federal courts have no power to consider claims [if] . . .

they lack subject-matter jurisdiction.” Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. U.S. v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 

1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or

the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place where such action is pending.” However, the removal statutes are construed restrictively so 

as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 

(1941); see also Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”). 

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking 

removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court must 

remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co, Inc., 300 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002).

Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. Rivet v. Regions 

Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987) (federal question must be presented on face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint); Fifty 

Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 1970) (existence of 

diversity jurisdiction must be sufficient on the face of the complaint). Jurisdiction may not be 

based on a claim raised as a defense or a counterclaim. K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 

653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

The face of the Complaint, which asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer,

does not provide any ground for removal.1 “An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not 

 

1

 The Complaint is a form complaint, specifically utilizing California Judicial Council Form UD100. See Dkt. No. 1 at 6-8. 

Case 3:16-cv-04595-VC Document 7 Filed 08/26/16 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

arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.” Snavely v. Johnson, 2015 WL 

5242925, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (citations omitted); HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Serrato, 

2013 WL 3337813, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013).

Further, where diversity is cited as a basis for jurisdiction, “removal is not permitted if a 

defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action, 

even if the opposing parties are diverse.” Snavely, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b)); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (requiring complete diversity 

between all plaintiffs and all defendants). Moreover, district courts have original jurisdiction over 

diversity cases only where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds 

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 86(a)(4), 

an unlawful detainer is a limited civil action where the “whole amount of damages claimed” must 

be “twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” See also Dkt. No. 1 at 6 (Complaint indicates 

this action is a “limited civil case” and the “Amount demanded” “does not exceed $10,000”).2 

Finally, an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer 

jurisdiction. See Holmes Grp. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002); 

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). “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.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health &

Envtl. Quality of the State of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted); see 

also 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 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.” (citation omitted)). Thus, any 

anticipated defense is not a valid ground for removal. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Bui, 2012 WL 762156, 

 

2

“[T]he amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, 

determines the amount in controversy.” Snavely, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2. Thus, even if “an 

unlawful detainer action involves foreclosure on a mortgage that exceeds $75,000, the amount of 

the mortgage does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” Id. (citing Deutsche Bank 

Nat’l Tr. v. Heredia, 2012 WL 4747157, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (holding that the amount in 

controversy requirement was not met even where the mortgage was valued at over $75,000)).

Case 3:16-cv-04595-VC Document 7 Filed 08/26/16 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

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (holding that affirmative defenses based upon Federal Truth in 

Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction upon

state unlawful detainer claim); Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at * 1 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (answer asserting plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act does not confer federal jurisdiction over unlawful detainer claim).

CONCLUSION

As jurisdiction appears to be lacking, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that this 

case be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court and Defendants’ Applications to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied as moot. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to

this report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: August 26, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04595-VC Document 7 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 4