Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03665/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Drian
Plaintiff
Jeffrey Littlefield
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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

BRIAN DRIAN,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JEFFREY LITTLEFIELD, AND DOES 1 TO 

10, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 15-3665 SBA 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

On July 1, 2015, Plaintiff Brian Drian filed an unlawful detainer action against 

Defendant Jeffrey Littlefield in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 

Contra Costa. On August 11, 2015, Defendant, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Removal 

along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Following removal, the action 

was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu (“Magistrate”). On August 25, 2015, 

the Magistrate referred the matter for reassignment to a district judge and recommended 

remanding the action to state court. Dkt. 6, 7.1

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed 

action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. 

Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The federal removal 

statute permits the removal of cases that might have been filed in federal court originally. 

 1 Typically, a party has fourteen days to object to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In this case, however, the Court, upon its 

independent review of the pleadings, finds that the lack subject matter jurisdiction is plain 

from the face of the complaint. Thus, to avoid further delay in this action and to facilitate 

the resumption of this case in its proper forum, the Court finds that an immediate remand is 

appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Case 4:15-cv-03665-SBA Document 8 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts “have original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States.” “[F]ederal 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). A district court must remand a case to state court “if at any time before the 

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c); Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 

1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e have held that the district court must remand if it lacks 

jurisdiction”). 

In the instant case, no federal claims are presented on the face of Plaintiff’s 

complaint, which is solely for unlawful detainer. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 

11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“an unlawful detainer 

action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California 

law”). Defendant’s Notice of Removal alleges that “[f]ederal question [jurisdiction] exists 

because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading[,] depends on the determination of Defendant’s 

rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice of Removal ¶ 10, Dkt. 1. However, 

it is well settled that defenses and counterclaims based on federal law cannot provide a 

sufficient basis to remove an action to federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the instant 

action is REMANDED to Contra Costa County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s request to 

proceed IFP is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending matters and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/25/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-03665-SBA Document 8 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2