Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03345/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03345-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Castaneda
Defendant
Norma Castaneda
Defendant
Pennymac Holdings, 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

PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN CASTANEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03345-KAW 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND TO 

STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On July 20, 2015, Defendant Christian Castaneda removed this unlawful detainer action 

from Alameda County Superior Court. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) 

As removal is clearly improper, and neither party has consented to the undersigned, for the 

reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that the 

case be remanded to state court.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Pennymac Holdings, LLC commenced this unlawful detainer action in Alameda 

County Superior Court on March 2, 2015. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 8-11.) The complaint contains a 

single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a “limited civil case,” in which 

Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property located in Livermore, California, which 

Defendants Christian Castaneda and Norma Castaneda currently occupy. (Compl. ¶ 1.) 

Defendants obtained a mortgage to purchase the Subject Property, which was secured by a deed of 

trust. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Defendants defaulted on their mortgage payments and failed to cure the 

default, so the Property was foreclosed upon and sold to Plaintiff in October 2014. (Compl. ¶¶ 4,

7.) Thereafter, Defendants did not vacate the Property, so Plaintiff initiated the unlawful detainer 

process, and filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Christian Castaneda, Norma Castaneda, 

Case 3:15-cv-03345-VC Document 8 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 5
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

and Does 1-10. (See Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

On July 20, 2015, Defendant Christian Castaneda removed the action to federal court on 

the grounds that it presents a federal question because “Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend 

on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Not. of 

Removal ¶ 10.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. 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) (citation omitted). A defendant may 

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at 

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly 

construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor 

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that 

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal 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. 

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to 

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[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 . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

Case 3:15-cv-03345-VC Document 8 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 5
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

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant Christian Castaneda1removed this unlawful detainer action from Alameda 

County Superior Court on the grounds that the district court has original jurisdiction because the 

case presents a federal question.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Defendant claims that a federal question exists based on a demurrer he filed in state court, 

which would result in “the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal 

law.” (Not. of Removal ¶ 10.) Defendant’s rights in an unlawful detainer action depend on the 

interpretation of state law. Further, Defendant has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff’s 

unlawful detainer claim will turn on a substantial question of federal law. In fact, it seems that any 

such showing is unlikely, as Plaintiff allegedly purchased Defendant’s property through the 

foreclosure process and is entitled to obtain possession of the premises. The complaint, therefore, 

fails to present a federal question or a substantial question of federal law.

Moreover, Defendant’s vague assertions that a federal question exists to determine 

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties does not alter this analysis. First, the well-pleaded 

complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any additional claims, such that a defendant 

cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal. 

See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see

also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted 

counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit removal). Here, Defendant’s references to the 

Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220, do not establish federal question jurisdiction in this 

matter, because the complaint raises only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. Thus, 

Defendant’s contention that there are any federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced.

Second, Defendant appears to seek removal based on a demurrer that was filed rather than 

the initial complaint, and the district court does not provide appellate review of state trial court 

 

1

The undersigned notes that co-defendant Norma Castaneda did not join in or consent to the 

removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). It is unclear, however, whether she was 

properly served. Thus, for the purposes of this report and recommendation, the court will assume 

that Ms. Castaneda was not required to join in the removal.

Case 3:15-cv-03345-VC Document 8 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 5
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

orders. 

Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or 

counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that 

Defendant’s assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to 

introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . 

. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is 

predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. 

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant 

rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be 

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the 

State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

As discussed above, this action is not removable on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction. Therefore, the only remaining removal basis would be diversity between Plaintiff, 

whose citizenship is unknown, and Defendant, a citizen of California. In such situations, the 

forum defendant rule applies, and an action may not be removed to the district court if any 

properly served defendant is a citizen of California. As Defendant is a citizen of California, the 

state in which this action was brought, this case is not removable on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-03345-VC Document 8 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court reassigns this action to a district judge with the 

recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings.

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

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

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: August 7, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03345-VC Document 8 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 5