Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00046-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Bailey
Defendant
Nationstar Mortgage, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-0046-TLN-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES BAILEY,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed this action from the Shasta County

Superior court on January 8, 2015. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand

(Doc. 3). The hearing on the motion was taken off calendar pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) as no

opposition was filed . 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines

at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” See also

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, it is clear that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this

action. 

This action was originally filed as an unlawful detainer action in the Superior

Court of California, County of Shasta, on September 25, 2013. The action is based on California

1

Case 2:15-cv-00046-TLN-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/06/15 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

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a. The complaint states the amount demanded does not exceed

$10,000.00. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that it is the owner of the property at issue,

purchased at a trustee’s sale following foreclosure. However, defendants have continued to

possess the property without plaintiff’s permission, even after being served with a written notice

to quit. (Compl. for Unlawful Detainer (Complaint), attached to Notice of Removal (Doc. 1)).

On January 8, 2015, defendant filed the notice of removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1441, indicating that this court has jurisdiction over this action as it raises a federal

question. The federal question, according to defendants, arises from the Notice to Quit they

received which references the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a

specific action, the case must either arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States or

involve citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28

U.S.C. § 1331, 1332. “[I]t is well established that the plaintiff is ‘master of her complaint’ and

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994,

997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that

removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087

(9th Cir. 2009). “The removal status is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” id., and

removal jurisdiction “‘must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

instance.’” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.

2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)). 

In relevant part, the federal removal statue provides:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,

any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts

of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by

the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United

States for the district and division embracing the place where such

action is pending . . . . 

2

Case 2:15-cv-00046-TLN-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/06/15 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

(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original

jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the

Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be

removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the

parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none 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(a), (b). 

To the extent defendants base the removal of this action on this court’s federal

question jurisdiction, such jurisdiction does not exist. District courts have federal question

jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates

the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on

some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086,

1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (modification in original) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question

jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

pleaded complaint.” Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1091. “[A] counterclaim - which appears as

part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint - cannot serve as the basis

for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535

U.S. 826, 831 (2002). 

Here, the unlawful detainer complaint filed in State court is only premised on

California law. No federal question is present, and thus no basis for federal question jurisdiction

appears on the face of the complaint. While defendants may contend in their notice of removal

that plaintiffs have somehow violated some federal law, perhaps by somehow violating the

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201, this assertion (if there is one at

all) would relate only to an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim, which is not

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint. 

3

Case 2:15-cv-00046-TLN-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/06/15 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

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009) (stating that federal

question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”). Accordingly,

federal question jurisdiction does not provide a proper basis for removal. 

The next possible basis for this court’s jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction. 

District courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy

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

“(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional

parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.” 28

U.S.C. § 1332; see also Geographic Expeditions, Inc., 599 F.3d at 1106.

Defendants do not appear to raise diversity of citizenship for this court’s

jurisdiction. However, even if raised, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000. When a state court complaint affirmatively alleges that the

amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the party seeking removal must

prove with “legal certainty” that the jurisdictional amount is met. See Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at

1000. The complaint filed in this action states unequivocally that the amount in controversy is

less than $10,000. (Complaint at 1). Defendants’ notice of removal does not challenge the

amount in controversy, and does not provide any basis for a finding that the amount in

controversy exceeds the $75,000 required. The amount in controversy is determined without

regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which defendant may be entitled. See Snow v. Ford

Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1977). Thus, the amount in controversy is insufficient to

provide this court with diversity jurisdiction. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that this court lacks

jurisdiction over this action, and this case should be remanded to the State court. There is no

federal question raised in the complaint, which is predicated on California state law. In addition,

no diversity jurisdiction exists as the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. 

4

Case 2:15-cv-00046-TLN-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/06/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motion to

remand (Doc. 3) be granted and this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Shasta.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 6, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:15-cv-00046-TLN-CMK Document 10 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 5