Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03881/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03881-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kim K. Burggraf
Cross-claimant
Cam IX Trust
Cross-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAM IX TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM K. BURGGRAF,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03881-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND CASE TO STATE 

COURT; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE 

TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On July 11, 2016, Defendant Kim Kelly Burggraf removed this unlawful detainer action 

from Sonoma County Superior Court. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) 

As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that 

the case be remanded to state court.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff CAM IX Trust commenced this unlawful detainer action in Sonoma County 

Superior Court on or around May 19, 2016. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A.) The complaint contains 

a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a “limited civil case,” in which 

Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a subject property located in Sebastopol, California, which 

Defendant Kim K. Burggraf previously owned and may currently occupy. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8.) 

On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff became the owner of the Subject Property by purchasing it at a 

foreclosure sale. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

On May 15, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly served a written Three Day Notice to Quit on 

Defendant and Does 1-10 to deliver possession of the premises by posting it on the premises. 

(Compl. ¶ 12; Notice and Proof of Service, Compl., Ex. 3.)

On or around May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in state court. On June 17, 2016, 

Case 3:16-cv-03881-JD Document 5 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant filed an answer in the state court action. (Not. of Removal, Ex. B.) On July 11, 2016, 

Defendant removed the action to federal court on the grounds that it presents “numerous Federal 

Questions,” including violations of the Truth in Lending Act, securities fraud, and the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act. (Not. of Removal at 3.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may 

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at 

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly 

construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor 

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that 

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to 

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[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 . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

///

Case 3:16-cv-03881-JD Document 5 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant Kim Kelly Burggraf, joined by presumed-Doe Defendant Bradley Shulak, 

removed this unlawful detainer action from Sonoma County Superior Court on the grounds that 

the district court has original jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Defendant claims that a federal question exists based on the answer filed in state court, 

which raised “numerous federal questions.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 10.) A defendant’s rights in an 

unlawful detainer action depend on the interpretation of state law. Further, Defendant has not 

shown why the resolution of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim will turn on a substantial question 

of federal law. In fact, it seems that any such showing is unlikely, as Plaintiff allegedly purchased 

the property in which Defendant resides through the foreclosure process and is entitled to obtain 

possession of the premises. The complaint, therefore, fails to present a federal question or a 

substantial question of federal law.

Moreover, Defendant’s assertion that a federal question exists based on various federal 

consumer protection statutes does not alter this analysis. The well-pleaded complaint rule 

prevents the Court from considering any additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create 

federal question jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal 

Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee 

v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted 

counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit removal). Furthermore, the limited scope of 

unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or counterclaims. See Knowles v.

Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, Defendant’s claimed violations of federal law fail 

to introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . 

. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is 

predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. 

Case 3:16-cv-03881-JD Document 5 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant 

rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be 

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the 

State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Here, Plaintiff is a citizen of Delaware, and Defendant Burggraf is a citizen of California. 

In such situations, the forum defendant rule applies, and an action may not be removed to the 

district court if any properly served defendant is a citizen of California. As Defendant is a citizen

of California, this case is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b).

C. Failure to Timely Remove

Generally, a defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file a notice of 

removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the initial pleading, or within thirty days after the 

service of summons upon the defendant, whichever is shorter. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, the 

underlying state court pleading was filed on or around May 19, 2016. Defendant filed an answer 

in the state court action on June 17, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B.) The notice of removal was not 

filed with this court until July 11, 2016. It is not established when Defendant was served with the 

complaint. Thus, for the purposes of this report and recommendation, the undersigned will 

consider the notice of removal timely. Notwithstanding, as discussed above, subject matter 

jurisdiction over the lawsuit does not exist to permit the district court to adjudicate the lawsuit.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-03881-JD Document 5 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings. 

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: July 14, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03881-JD Document 5 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 5