Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01813/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia Easterling
Defendant
Fairfield Quail Terrace, 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FAIRFIELD QUAIL TERRACE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICIA EASTERLING, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01813-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

On August 27, 2015, defendant, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer 

action from Solano County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) On the same day, defendant moved to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to 

the Solano County Superior Court and DENIES defendant’s motion as MOOT. 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01813-KJM-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

 Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Solano County Superior 

Court. The form complaint filed in the State Court is for unlawful detainer only. (ECF No. 1.) 

Defendant grounds the removal on the court’s federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “[f]ederal 

question exists because [the] Answer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of [her] rights 

and [p]laintiff’s duties under federal law.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) However, plaintiff is the master of 

the complaint and may “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. 

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Hence, defendant’s assertion is best 

characterized as a defense or a potential counterclaim; neither of which can be considered in 

evaluating whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 

(2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); 

Valles, 410 F.3d at 1075 (“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.”); Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,145 F.3d 320, 326–27 

(5th Cir. 1998); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 Accordingly, because plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not provide a 

basis for federal question jurisdiction, and defendant’s potential defenses or counterclaims cannot 

provide the basis for removal jurisdiction here, this court cannot exercise subject matter 

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s single state-law claim for unlawful detainer. This case is 

REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Defendant’s IFP motion is DENIED as MOOT. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 1, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01813-KJM-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2