Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03212/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernardo Alcaraz
Defendant
KMF Oakland LLC
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KMF OAKLAND LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BERNARDO ALCARAZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03212-DMR 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE; AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

TO SUPERIOR COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

ALAMEDA

Defendant Bernardo Alcaraz removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 from 

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, where it was pending as a complaint for 

unlawful detainer against Defendant. The Notice of Removal states one ground for removal: that 

the Complaint presents a federal question such that the case could have originally been filed in this 

Court. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3, 7. 

When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it “promptly,” and, “[i]f it 

clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not 

be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). The 

parties have not yet filed a declination or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the court issues herein a Report and Recommendation and 

reassigns this case to a District Judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that summary 

remand be ordered.

I. DISCUSSION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and 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) (citations omitted). “[T]he presence or 

Case 3:16-cv-03212-WHA Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 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

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.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) 

(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to 

evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in 

removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 

n.2 (2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what 

is or should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. The implication of a federal question 

through issues raised by an answer or counterclaim does not suffice to establish federal question 

jurisdiction. Id. at 831; see also ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. 

Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[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.” (citation omitted) (brackets in original)).

According to Defendant’s Notice of Removal, “the underlying federal question in the 

removed action is Defendant[’]s right to be protected by 42 USC §§ 3604(a) and 3604(b) of the 

Fair Housing Act in the removed State Court Action.” Notice of Removal ¶ 3. The complaint that 

Plaintiff KMF Oakland LLC filed in Alameda County Superior Court, however, simply alleges a 

state cause of action under unlawful detainer. Compl. Whatever Defendant intends to argue in 

response to this allegation does not give rise to removal jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, 535 U.S. 

at 831; see also Nguyen v. Bui, No. 12-501 HRL, 2012 WL 762156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 

2012) (holding that affirmative defenses based upon Federal Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction upon state unlawful detainer claim). 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the court recommends that this action be remanded to the Alameda

County Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to a District Judge.

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

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 

Case 3:16-cv-03212-WHA Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:16-cv-03212-WHA Document 5 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 3