Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00568/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Plaintiff
Dionne Gingher
Defendant
Mark Sanders
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

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY AS INDENTURE 

TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGEIT 

TRUST 2005-1,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIONNE GINGHER, MARK D. 

SANDERS, and Does 1 through 5, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00568-MCE-EFB-PS

ORDER

On March 18, 2016, Defendant MARK SANDERS, 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 

 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 2:16-cv-00568-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 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

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, 

Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446.2 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 25-27. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded 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 sole claim 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. §§ 1441(a).

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 

 2 While Defendant also appears to refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a basis for removal, elsewhere in 

his Notice of Removal he states plainly that federal jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship. 

Def.’s Notice, 9:24-25

Case 2:16-cv-00568-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 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

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

number (No. FCM 148908) in the proof of service.

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) 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 148908. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00568-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 3