Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vanessa Burton
Defendant
Rivers Community Association
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIVERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VANESSA BURTON,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1088 TLN CKD PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal 

question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper 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). However, the exhibits attached to the removal 

petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, 

Case 2:15-cv-01088-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

and the state court action is titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

Defendant has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will 

recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded 

to the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 28, 2015

4 rivers-burton1088.remud.ifp

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01088-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2