Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Catlin
Defendant
Federal National Mortgage Association
Plaintiff

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY CATLIN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-00999-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

On May 11, 2016, defendant Jeffrey Catlin, proceeding pro se, removed this 

unlawful detainer action from Yuba County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. As explained below, the 

court REMANDS the case to Yuba County Superior Court. 

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

A. Legal Standard 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity-in-citizenship jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Case 2:16-cv-00999-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 06/07/16 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

Under § 1331, 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. 

Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when 

the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 

cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-in-citizenship jurisdiction where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount 

in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); 

Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic 

Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 

B. Discussion 

Mr. Catlin’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction 

under § 1331 because his answer “assert[s] a defense arising under the express terms of a Federal 

statute.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for 

unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, which is a matter of 

state law. See ECF No. 1 at 9. 

As stated above, Mr. Catlin’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for 

federal question jurisdiction, see Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint 

and may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy 

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show 

Case 2:16-cv-00999-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 06/07/16 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

that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the 

action. 

Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint 

seeks possession of the property and damages of $27.07 per day for each day from March 2, 2016 

until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 11. Because these damages are not likely to total more 

than $75,000, and Mr. Catlin has provided no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in 

controversy, the court does not appear to have diversity jurisdiction over the action. 

II. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Yuba County Superior 

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 6, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00999-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3