Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01770/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01770-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lesarra Owner LLC
Plaintiff
Thomas Morin
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESARRA OWNER LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS MORIN,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-01770-MCE-EFB

ORDER

On July 28, 2016, Defendant Thomas Morin, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of 

Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the El Dorado County Superior Court.

1

 

ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may 

remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the 

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal 

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

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, 

Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 

 1 Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 

a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01770-MCE-EFB Document 2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 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

2

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1 at 2. However, a review of the 

Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, Plaintiff 

alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of 

federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage 

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At 

most, Defendant argues that he has a defense under federal law. “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, and even if both parties admit that the defense is 

the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of 

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.2

Accordingly:

1. The action is REMANDED to the El Dorado County Superior Court.

///

///

 2 Nor has Defendant established that this Court has diversity jurisdiction, since the Notice of 

Removal does not establish diversity of the parties or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, No. CV 12-01641 GAF (CMx), 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in 

unlawful detainer actions is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”). 

Case 2:16-cv-01770-MCE-EFB Document 2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 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

3

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the El Dorado County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. PCU20160125) in the proof of service.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

4. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 

following unlawful detainer action: No. PCU20160125.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01770-MCE-EFB Document 2 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 3