Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00231-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wanda Ashley
Defendant
Anil Nayyar
Plaintiff
Asia Stuckey-White
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 

ANIL NAYYAR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ASIA STUCKEY-WHITE, WANDA 

ASHLEY, and DOES 1 to 100, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0231-JAM-DB-PS 

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT 

 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 

to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 

Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 

retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 

Judge.”). 

 On January 31, 2020, Defendants Asia Stuckey-White and Wanda 

Ashley filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to 

remove an action from Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice 

of Removal, ECF No. 1. For the following reasons, the Court sua 

sponte REMANDS this case to Sacramento County Superior Court. 

Case 2:20-cv-00231-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action 

to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 

case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). A defendant seeking 

removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

 Defendants attempt to remove an unlawful detainer action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal at 2. They contend 

this Court has federal question jurisdiction because the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220, 

“preempted State Law as to bona fide Residential tenants of 

foreclosed Landlords.” Id. (citing Florida Lime & Growers, Inc. 

v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963)). Defendants contend this suit 

arises under federal law because Plaintiff’s eviction did not 

comport with PFTA’s requirements. Id. at 2-3. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 

can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 

Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 

diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 

the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Case 2:20-cv-00231-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 

(1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction 

over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 

Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 

Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be 

more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction 

it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 

1988). 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 

be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 

Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 

2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 

right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 In this case, Defendants are unable to establish subject 

matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed 

in the state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful 

detainer based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.45. 

Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of 

state court. Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s complaint 

improperly designates a PFTA claim as an unlawful detainer claim 

Case 2:20-cv-00231-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

does not persuade the Court. See Notice of Removal at 4. A 

defendant’s attempt to create federal subject matter jurisdiction 

by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not 

succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal 

question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated 

counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 

(9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does 

not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense 

is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the 

plaintiff’s complaint.”). 

 In determining the presence or absence of federal 

jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 

applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 

established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 

Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 

First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 

that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 

law.”). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 

face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 

not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 

avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendants cannot inject a 

Case 2:20-cv-00231-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/03/20 Page 4 of 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 

5 

federal issue through their answer or demurrer. 

 Accordingly, 

1. This action is remanded forthwith to the Sacramento 

County Superior Court for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction; 

2. Defendants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 

3, is DENIED as moot; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 31, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:20-cv-00231-JAM-DB Document 3 Filed 02/03/20 Page 5 of 5