Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janeth Romero Dejesus
Defendant
Janeth M. Romero
Defendant
U.S. Bank National Association
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00404-LB

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JANETH M. ROMERO, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 20-cv-00404-LB 

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

CASE TO STATE COURT 

Re: ECF No. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff U.S. National Bank Association (as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title 

Trust) filed an unlawful-detainer case against its tenant, defendant Janeth M. Romero (a/k/a Janeth 

Romero DeJesus), in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County.1

 Ms. Romero, who is 

representing herself, removed the case from state court, asserting federal-question and diversity 

jurisdiction.2 Ms. Romero has not established federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and 

remand to state court thus is appropriate. The parties have not consented to magistrate-judge 

jurisdiction. This case therefore must be reassigned. The undersigned orders the clerk of court to 

1

 Compl., Ex. A to Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 6–28. Citations refer to material in the 

Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents. 

2

 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 1–4. 

Case 3:20-cv-00404-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 4
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00404-LB 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 Californi

a

reassign this case to a district judge and recommends that the newly assigned judge sua sponte 

remand the case back to the Superior Court. 

ANALYSIS 

Subject to certain requirements and limitations, a defendant generally may remove a case from 

state court to federal court where the case presents either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)–(c). The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for the 

federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 

712 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may 

remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Ms. Romero alleges the following to support her contention that there is federal-question 

jurisdiction: (1) the court “has jurisdiction under U.S.C. section 1443 (1): Denial of due process in 

Unlawful Detainer: Eviction after foreclosure and/or rental lease and ejectment, in that the rules of 

evidence and civil procedure are applied without equal protection;”3 (2) the plaintiff’s attorney 

violated Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 when they “used knowledge of the law by 

attempting to prevent Defendant from fully and accurately presenting their case. Defendant is, 

therefore, being denied her due process rights and equal protection under the 14th amendment, to 

protect her tenancy;”4 (3) “the instant case involves allegations of violations of Defendant’s civil 

rights on the basis of JANETH M. ROMERO’s ethnicity and national origin, namely Filipino;”5

and (4) “the actions of Counsel for Plaintiff and the State Court are depriving Defendant of due 

process of law in that she is being dispossessed of her property, in noncompliance with the express 

language of the aforementioned referenced statute.”6

3 Id. at 2. 

4 Id. at 3. 

5 Id. at (capitalization in original). 

6 Id. at 3–4. 

Case 3:20-cv-00404-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 4
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00404-LB 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 Californi

a

The complaint does not present any federal questions and involves only a state-law unlawfuldetainer claim. Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the 

court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. 3:11-cv00451-WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, 

No. 4:11-cv-01894-PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit 

Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 

2010). As for Ms. Romero’s argument that the plaintiff violated her due process rights based on 

her ethnicity, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the 

face of the plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. A 

federal question raised only in a response to a complaint does not establish federal-question 

jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). No Federal question is presented on the face of the complaint 

here. 

Nor is there diversity jurisdiction. There is diversity of citizenship because Ms. Romero, who 

presumably is residing at the property at issue (located in California) and appears to be a citizen of 

California, and, according to the California Secretary of State’s website, the plaintiff is a citizen of 

Delaware.7 The complaint, however, alleges less than $25,000 in damages,8 well under the 

$75,000 requirement of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The court therefore does not 

have diversity jurisdiction over this case. 

Because the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, sua sponte remand is 

appropriate. 

CONCLUSION 

The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge. The 

undersigned recommends that the newly assigned district judge sua sponte remand this case back 

7

 Cal. Sec’y of State, Business Search, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults? 

filing=&SearchType=LPLLC&SearchCriteria=truman+sc6&SearchSubType=Keyword (last visited 

Jan. 24, 2020) 

8

 Compl., Ex. A to Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 27.

Case 3:20-cv-00404-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 4
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 20-cv-00404-LB 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 Californi

a

to the Superior Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. 

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to review of the issue in the district court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: February 10, 2020 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:20-cv-00404-JD Document 5 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 4