Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05747/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05747-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Castle Creek Company, Inc.
Plaintiff
Jessie Stewart
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 

CASTLE CREEK COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JESSIE STEWART, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-05747-JCS 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE 

SUA SPONTE REMAND 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Castle Creek Company, Inc. brought an unlawful detainer action in state court 

against Defendant Jessie Stewart. Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court. 

See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1). The undersigned recommends that this case be REMANDED sua 

sponte to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. Because the parties 

have not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this case will be 

reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, including action on these 

recommendations. Any party may file objections to these recommendations within fourteen days 

of being served with a copy of this Report. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-05747-VC Document 6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of 

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of 

Removal ¶10. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case 

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’” 

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

“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 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may 

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. 

Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. Defendant’s Notice of 

Removal states that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend 

[sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice 

of Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a federal defense presented in the Answer provides no basis 

for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The undersigned therefore finds no basis for 

federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be remanded. 1

 

 

1

 The Court notes that Defendant has not invoked diversity as a basis for federal jurisdiction and 

that removal on that basis would have been improper. The diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332, provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 

between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, 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)(2). It is apparent from the Notice of Removal that Defendant is a 

citizen of California and therefore he may not invoke diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 to 

remove an action filed in California state court. 

Case 3:16-cv-05747-VC Document 6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

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 

III

RE

Co

Da

I. CONC

For the 

EMANDED 

onference se

ated: Octobe

LUSION 

reasons stat

to the Califo

et for Janua

er 11, 2016 

ted above, th

ornia Superio

ry 6, 2017 i

3

he undersign

or Court for 

s vacated. 

___

JO

Ch

ned recomme

Contra Cost

__________

OSEPH C. SP

hief Magistra

ends that this

ta County. T

___________

PERO 

ate Judge 

s action be 

The Case M

__________

anagement

________ 

t

Case 3:16-cv-05747-VC Document 6 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 3