Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00733/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00733-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kalib M. Babcock
Defendant
Wendy Hughes
Defendant
Morehouse Homes, Inc.
Plaintiff
Spencer David Company, Inc.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOREHOUSE HOMES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KALIB M. BABCOCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00733-JCS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING REMAND TO STATE 

COURT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Morehouse Homes, Inc. and Spencer David Company, Inc. brought this unlawful 

detainer action against Defendants Kalib Babcock and Wendy Hughes in the California Superior 

Court for Contra Costa County. Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court, 

asserting federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1). The undersigned

magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of 

federal jurisdiction. Order to Show Cause (dkt. 8). Defendants failed to file a response by the 

April 9, 2015 deadline and did not attend the hearing scheduled for April 10, 2015. For the 

reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this action be REMANDED to state court. 

Because the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the case will be 

reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings.

II. ANALYSIS

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 10 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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 California

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of 

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). 

A district court may remand a case to state court sua sponte if it determines that jurisdiction is 

lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).

Here, Defendants‟ Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of 

Removal ¶¶ 7−10.1 Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that 

arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 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 turns on some construction of federal law.‟” 

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

“The 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.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may 

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

The Complaint in this case alleges only violations of California state law. See generally

Compl. (Notice of Removal at ECF pp. 5−9); see also, e.g., Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. 

Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (unlawful 

detainer is a state law claim). Defendants‟ Notice of Removal states that a “[f]ederal question 

exists because Defendant‟s Answer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant‟s 

rights and Plaintiff‟s duties under federal law.” Notice of Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a 

federal defense presented in the Answer provides no grounds for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 

U.S. at 393. The undersigned therefore finds no basis for federal jurisdiction, and recommends 

 

1 Defendants have not invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and there is 

no indication that diversity jurisdiction applies. All parties appear to be citizens of California.

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 10 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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 California

that the case be remanded.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that this action be 

REMANDED to the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County. The case will be 

reassigned to a United States district judge for action on this recommendation and any further

proceedings. Any party may file objections to this recommendation no later than fourteen days 

after being served with a copy of this Report.

Defendants, who are unrepresented, are encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro Bono 

Project‟s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses for 

assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th floor 

at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in Room

470-S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made by 

calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up in the appointment book located outside either office. 

Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves 

but cannot provide legal representation.

Dated: April 14, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 10 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 3