Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02478/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02478-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Burke
Defendant
Eric DeManincor
Plaintiff
Steve Herman
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

ERIC DEMANINCOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN BURKE, STEVE HERMAN and 

Does 1 through 2,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02478-MCE-EFB-PS

ORDER

On November 30, 2015, Defendant John Burke, proceeding in pro se, filed a 

Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Solano 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 Defendant’s 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-02478-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 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 

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. 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 

10-12. 

“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 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, Defendant argues that he has 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. §§ 1131 and 1441.

Accordingly:

1. The action is REMANDED to the Solano County Superior Court.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the Solano County Superior Court and reference the state case 

number (No. FCM147794) in the proof of service.

///

Case 2:15-cv-02478-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 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

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as 

moot.

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

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

following unlawful detainer action: No. FCM 147794. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 1, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02478-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3