Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
April Stewart
Defendant
Daniel T. Walsh
Plaintiff

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

DANIEL T. WALSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

APRIL STEWART

 Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-2185-TLN-KJN

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

I. Background

On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff Daniel T. Walsh filed an unlawful detainer action in the 

Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado. Defendant April Stewart removed the action 

to this Court on October 21, 2015. (Def. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1.) 

In the superior court action Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful 

detainer “was based on a defective Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” under California Code of Civil

Procedure § 1161(2). (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendant’s stated basis for removal is:

 “Notwithstanding said violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2), the Superior 

Court for the County of El Dorado did not sustain the Answer.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

 “Federal question exists because [of] Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depending on 

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

(ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Case 2:15-cv-02185-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 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

 “Wherefore, [Defendant] respectfully remove[s] this action ... pursuant to 28 United 

States Code §§ 1331 and 1441.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.)

 “This Action is removable to the instant Court because it originally could have been 

filed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or (b). The complaint presents 

federal questions. Supplemental jurisdiction exists with respect to any remaining 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

II. Analysis

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits the removal to federal court of any civil action of which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides two 

paths to removal: 1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and 2) diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal [question] 

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). Removal under 

diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be of citizens of different states and that the amount 

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of § 75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Further, under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367, in a civil action in which this court has original jurisdiction, “the district courts shall have 

supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 

such original jurisdiction.”

The Court has fully stated herein the arguments contained in the removal notice. With 

respect to federal question, the stated basis is that Defendant’s answer to the unlawful detainer 

complaints depends on an adjudication of rights and duties under federal law. However, a federal 

question must be present on the face of complaint. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 386. The Court finds

Defendant has not presented a federal question on the face of the complaint. With respect to 

diversity jurisdiction, the unlawful detainer complaint lists California addresses for the two 

parties, and a request for past-due rent of $1,100 and forfeiture of the rental agreement. (ECF No. 

1 at 6, 8.) Therefore, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not met. Because the 

complaint presents no basis for original jurisdiction, there is no basis for this Court to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Case 2:15-cv-02185-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 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

For the foregoing reasons, this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, 

County of El Dorado. Defendant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2 & 3) are 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

Dated: October 27, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02185-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3