Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Menis
Defendant
Mary Menis
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants Kenneth Menis and Mary Menis seek the removal of the unlawful detainer action 

initiated by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. S-1500-CL-288527.

1

 

(Doc. 1 at 1-2, 5.) Because an action for unlawful detainer arises under California law, the Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends the action be

REMANDED to Kern County Superior Court.

I. Removal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court 

 

1

The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 

(9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of 

court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 

80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 

F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore, 

judicial notice is taken of the docket and complaint filed in Case No. S-1500-CL-288527.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH MENIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00444 - --- - JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE 

ACTION 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Case 1:15-cv-00444-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 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

where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 

392 (1987). Specifically,

Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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 defendants, to the district court of the United 

States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 

A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of 

receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, 

and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its 

propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 

676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the 

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt 

as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.

The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action 

sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & 

Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural 

and jurisdictional defects and holding that a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus, 

the Sixth Circuit explained that a court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of

Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).

II. Discussion and Analysis

The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 

rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Therefore, the 

complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00444-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 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

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)). 

Although Defendants argue the plaintiff raised a federal cause of action in the complaint, the 

only cause of action is for unlawful detainer. (See Doc. 1 at 9.) Significantly, an unlawful detainer 

action does not arise under federal law, but arises instead under state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 

2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly 

within the province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful 

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law”). Thus, because the only claim 

appearing on the face of the complaint is unlawful detainer, the plaintiff has not raised a claim that 

invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction.

In addition, Defendants seek to invoke federal jurisdiction because they claim the plaintiff 

violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 by giving insufficient notice prior to filing 

the eviction proceeding. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). However, claims arising under the Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act are “best characterized as defenses or potential counterclaims; neither of which are

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint. First 

Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145066, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Dec.16, 

2011) (citing Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Moreover, “federal district courts 

have held that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not create a federal private right of 

action.” Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129905, at *7, n. 3 (E.D. Cal., 

Nov. 9, 2011). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action based upon 

Defendants’ claim that the plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. 

III. Conclusion

Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 

jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

Case 1:15-cv-00444-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 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

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).

Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District 

Judge to this action

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENED:

1. The matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kern County; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00444-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 4 of 4