Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00129/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Renee Epperly
Defendant
Gold Ridge Apartments
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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GOLD RIDGE APARTMENTS OWNER, 

LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RENEE EPPERLY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-00129-JAM-EFB 

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT 

 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 

to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 

Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 

retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 

Judge.”). 

 On January 17, 2020, Defendant Renee Epperly filed a Notice 

of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from the 

Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 

For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 

Case 2:20-cv-00129-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

to Sacramento County Superior Court. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action 

to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 

case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a 

defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 

a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 

initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendant seeking 

removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

 Here, Defendant attempts to invoke the Court’s federal 

question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2. Defendant argues 

that this Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s complaint 

“was filed in retaliation against Defendant for her attempting to 

exercise her [First Amendment] right.” Id. at 2. Federal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general 

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only 

those cases authorized by the United States Constitution and 

Congress. Generally, those cases involve diversity of 

citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which the United 

States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 

375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). 

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil 

actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter 

Case 2:20-cv-00129-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the Court sua 

sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 

F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more 

jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction 

is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is 

nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 

be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 

Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 

2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 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). 

In determining the presence or absence of federal 

jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 

applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 

established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 

Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 

First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 

Case 2:20-cv-00129-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 

law.”). 

 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish jurisdiction 

before this Court because the complaint filed in the state court, 

19-UD-06481, contains a single cause of action for unlawful 

detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 

province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal 

subject-matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 

notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest 

upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill 

Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“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.”). As such, 

Defendant’s attempt to assert a First Amendment retaliation 

defense to Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action does not give 

rise to federal question jurisdiction here. 

 The Court REMANDS this case to Sacramento County Superior 

Court for all future proceedings. Defendant’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of 

the Court is directed to close this case. 

Dated: January 17, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:20-cv-00129-JAM-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 4