Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06407/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06407-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dallin LLC
Plaintiff
Josephine Iiga
Defendant
Leonard Parham
Defendant
Susan Robinson
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALLIN LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPHINE IIGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-06407-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE 

AND REPORT & 

RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND

Plaintiff brought this state-law unlawful detainer action against Defendant in the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Contra Costa seeking to evict Defendants from real property 

located in Oakland, California. Defendants Josephine Iiga, Leonard Parham, and Susan Robinson, 

representing themselves, removed the action to federal court. Given the lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction appearing on the face of the Complaint, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause 

(“OSC”) as to why this case should not be remanded. (Dkt. No. 7.) Although ordered to respond 

to the OSC by November 23, 2016, Defendants have failed to do so.

Because Defendants have not yet filed a consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to REASSIGN this action to a district court judge. 

For the reasons explained below, this Court recommends that the case be REMANDED.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises 

Case 3:16-cv-06407-EMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5
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

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal 

law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be 

remanded back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, Defendants base removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the removed 

complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendants’ allegation that “federal 

question exists here because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading[,] depends on the determination of 

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law” (see Dkt. No. 1 at 2) is of no moment 

because 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, 393 (1987)

(“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense[.]”) (emphasis in original); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Terrenal, No. 12–5540, 2013 

WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for asserting federal claim 

jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer”).

Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of 

$75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a). Further, only non-resident 

defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Spencer v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any 

“local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action cannot be removed by 

that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 

628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the civil cover sheet alleges 

that Defendants reside in Alameda County and are therefore a citizens of California. (Dkt. No. 1-1 

Case 3:16-cv-06407-EMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 5
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

at 1.) As Defendants are all “local,” removal is improper on this basis as well.

Following the Court’s OSC, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and an ex parte application 

to shorten time on the motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) Given Defendants’ failure to respond 

to the OSC regarding remand and the clear lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the face of the 

complaint, there is no need to wait for further briefing or oral argument on those motions. See 

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Remand is required.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court 

judge REMAND this action to Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. 

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the district court’s ultimate Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06407-EMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 5
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALLIN LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPHINE IIGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06407-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 5, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Josephine Iiga

8208 Dowling Street

Oakland, CA 94605 

Leonard Parham

8208 Dowling Street

Oakland, CA 94605 

Susan Robinson

8208 Dowling Street

Oakland, CA 94605 

Dated: December 5, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-06407-EMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-06407-EMC Document 12 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 5