Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01591/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01591-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dung C. Dao
Plaintiff
Michael Huntley
Defendant
Sasha Huntley
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 

DUNG C. DAO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL HUNTLEY and SASHA 

HUNTLEY, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01591-MCE-CKD 

ORDER 

On July 24, 2015, Defendants Michael and Sasha Huntley (“Defendants”), 

proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the 

Sacramento County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. This is the second time this action has 

been removed. Defendants previously removed this action on May 18, 2015, and it was 

remanded by this Court on June 19, 2015. See No. 2:15-cv-1073, ECF Nos. 1, 5. The 

Defendants are warned that any future attempts to remove this case will not be 

successful. 

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 

 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 2:15-cv-01591-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 07/24/15 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

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, Defendants have 

failed to meet that burden. 

The Notice of Removal is premised on the same arguments as the previous 

removal attempt. Once again, Defendants state that this Court has federal jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff should have provided Defendants 

additional time before filing any state eviction proceedings under the Protecting Tenants 

at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201. 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. ECF No. 1 at 12. 

“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, Defendants argue that they have 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) 

/// 

Case 2:15-cv-01591-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 07/24/15 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

(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 Sacramento County Superior Court. 

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

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. 15 UD 02762) in the proof of service. 

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 

moot. 

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

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

following unlawful detainer action: No. 15 UD 02762. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 24, 2015 

 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.”). 

Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $4,100 in past due rent. ECF No. 1 at 12. 

Case 2:15-cv-01591-MCE-CKD Document 3 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3