Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01701/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01701-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Archuleta
Defendant
Michael R. Arredondo
Defendant
Roberto Grijalva
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

ROBERTO GRIJALVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL R. ARREDONDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01701-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR REMAND

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2, 3

On April 2, 2019, Defendants Michael R. Arredondo and Elizabeth Archuleta, proceeding 

pro se, removed this action from Contra Costa County Superior Court and filed applications to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and therefore the Court does not have authority to make 

a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to 

a district judge. Moreover, for the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court REMAND this action to state court.

The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without prepayment of 

fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such 

fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds that Defendants have

demonstrated that they are unable to pay the filing fee and, thus, GRANTS their applications for 

IFP. However, the in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if, inter 

alia, the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, the Court has an independent duty to ascertain its 

jurisdiction and may remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal courts are courts 

Case 3:19-cv-01701-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/02/19 Page 1 of 4
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

of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on 

the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal

jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is 

any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

Here, Plaintiff Roberto Grijalva filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in 

state court to evict them. Defendants argued in their notice of removal that the Complaint for 

unlawful detainer presents federal questions. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants further argue that federal 

questions exist because their demurrer that they filed in state court depends upon the determination 

of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s obligations under state law. (Id.) Defendants do not cite to 

any law or state to what federal law they are referring. Defendants attach only the first page of 

their demurrer to their notice of removal. That first page does not include Defendants’ legal 

grounds for their demurrer. (Id.) However, in their notice of removal, Defendants state that their 

demurrer was based on Plaintiff’s defective Notice to Quit. (Id.)

The Court does not have federal question or diversity jurisdiction over this matter. “The 

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 

rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-pleaded complaint rule 

recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal 

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, 

federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law creates 

the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a 

substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 

This is an unlawful detainer action, which is purely a creature of California law. Thus, 

federal law does not create the cause of action. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, the Court concludes that the claim will not necessarily depend 

upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Furthermore, a court cannot exercise 

Case 3:19-cv-01701-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/02/19 Page 2 of 4
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

removal jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint gives rise to a potential or an anticipated 

defense that might raise a federal question, even if the defense is the only question truly at issue in 

the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 10, 14; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is 

now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, 

including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, 

and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) 

(emphasis in original). Therefore, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

The Court also determines that it does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter. 

According to the plain language of the Complaint, the amount in controversy does not exceed the 

jurisdictional amount of $75,000. “In unlawful detainer actions, the right to possession is 

contested, not title to the property, and plaintiffs may collect only damages that are incident to that 

unlawful possession.” Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Pulido, 2012 WL 540554 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 17, 2012). Here, Plaintiff seeks daily damages of $41.67 from January 5, 2019 until 

judgment and filed this action as a “Limited Civil Case” in which the amount demanded does not 

exceed $10,000. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Where, as here, a plaintiff specifically alleges that the amount 

in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, a defendant has the burden of showing with 

legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank 

National Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007)). Defendants have not done so here.

Diversity jurisdiction is lacking for another independent reason. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) 

prohibits removal where a defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff 

originally brought the action. See Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 

393 F.3d 86, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any “local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has 

been served, the action cannot be removed by that defendant, or by any other defendant.” 

Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Here, the 

complaint alleges that Defendants reside at the subject property, located in Contra Costa County, 

California, and therefore are citizens of California. (Dkt. No. 1.) Because Defendants are citizens

of California, they are precluded from removing this action on the grounds of diversity. 

Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. The Court thus

Case 3:19-cv-01701-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/02/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

recommends that this action be REMANDED to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Any 

party may object to this recommendation within fourteen days of the filing date of this order. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2019 

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01701-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/02/19 Page 4 of 4