Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04827/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04827-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal National Mortgage Association
Plaintiff
Michelle M. Martinez
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER (No. 3: 15-cv-04827-LB)

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 

San Francisco Division 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELLE M. MARTINEZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-04827-LB 

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 

AND (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

THE COURT TO REASSIGN THIS 

ACTION TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 3] 

INTRODUCTION 

The plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) filed a complaint for 

unlawful detainer against the defendant Michelle Martinez in Contra Costa County Superior Court 

on August 18, 2015. (Complaint, ECF No.1 at 6-11.1

) Ms. Martinez removed the action from state 

court, alleging federal-question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Neither party 

has consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. Because Fannie Mae’s unlawful detainer 

complaint presents only a state law claim on its face, the court finds no basis for federal 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court orders that this case be reassigned to a district judge and 

recommends that the newly-assigned district judge remand this action back to Contra Costa 

County Superior Court. 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronically generated 

page numbers at the top of the document. 

Case 4:15-cv-04827-PJH Document 5 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-04827-LB) 

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 

STATEMENT 

Fannie Mae alleges that it owns the property at 1308 Miner Avenue, San Pablo, California. 

(Complaint, ECF No. at 1 at 6.) Ms. Martinez is the former trustor or holdover occupant of the 

former trustor of the property. (Id. at 7.) 

Fannie Mae alleges that Ms. Martinez defaulted under the terms of the Deed of Trust which 

secured the property that is the subject of this litigation. (Id.) A Notice of Default and Breach of 

Conditions of the Deed of Trust and Election to Sell the Property was recorded in the Official 

Records in the Office of the County Recorder in Contra Costa County, California. (Id.) A 

Trustee’s sale of the property then took place, and the property was sold to JPMorgan Chase Bank. 

(Id. at 7-8.) JPMorgan Chase Bank quitclaim deeded the property to Fannie Mae. (Id. at 8.) 

Fannie Mae served Ms. Martinez with a Notice for Possession on August 4, 2015. (Id.) Fannie 

Mae then filed the instant unlawful detainer action in Contra Costa County Superior Court on 

August 18, 2015. (Id.) On September 22, 2015, Ms. Martinez answered the complaint. (Answer, 

ECF No. 1 at 10-11.) She then removed the action to federal court on October 20, 2015, alleging 

federal-question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) 

ANALYSIS 

1. Ms. Martinez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

Ms. Martinez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on October 20, 2015. (IFP 

Application, ECF No. 3.) The court grants her application. 

2. Federal-Question Jurisdiction Does Not Exist 

A defendant in a state court may remove an action to federal court so long as the action could 

have originally asserted federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). The burden is on the 

removing defendant to prove the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v. 

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). If, after a court’s prompt 

review of a notice of removal, “it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits 

annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary 

remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 

Case 4:15-cv-04827-PJH Document 5 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-04827-LB) 

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 

construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941); 

Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face of 

the plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 

1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). An actual or anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer 

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 

10 (1983); Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, a 

plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting necessary federal questions from his or her 

complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, 463 U.S. 1 at 22. 

Here, Fannie Mae alleges a claim against Ms. Martinez for unlawful detainer. (See Complaint, 

ECF No. 1 at 6-11.) Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, 

the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. C 

11-00451 WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. 

Rosario, No. C 11-1894 PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit 

Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 

2010). 

Ms. Martinez nonetheless asserts that the court has federal-question jurisdiction because “a 

pleading depends on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal 

law.” (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2.) Ms. Martinez does not, however, allege any basis for 

federal jurisdiction beyond Fannie Mae’s state claim, and a federal defense does not confer 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, federal-question jurisdiction does not exist. 

3. Diversity Jurisdiction Does Not Exist 

The court also considers whether Ms. Martinez may invoke diversity jurisdiction. Federal 

courts have diversity jurisdiction where the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Furthermore, removal is 

Case 4:15-cv-04827-PJH Document 5 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-04827-LB) 

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 

impermissible if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought (even if the

opposing parties are citizens of different states). See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

Ms. Martinez is a citizen of California, the state in which this action has been brought. Thus, 

she cannot remove the action from California state court. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction does 

not exist.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Ms. Martinez’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Remand to Contra Costa County Superior Court is appropriate. Because neither party 

has either consented to or declined the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the court orders the Clerk of the 

Court to reassign this action to a district court judge and recommends that the newly-assigned 

district court judge remand this action back to Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation with the district judge 

within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the 

issue in the district court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 28, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-04827-PJH Document 5 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 4