Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00953/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00953-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arvind Patel
Plaintiff
Avelina Sagnep
Defendant
Hermie Sagnep
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

C 15-00953 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

ARVIND PATEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVELINA SAGNEP; HERMIE SAGNEP,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-00953 LB

ORDER (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S IFP APPLICATION

AND (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK

OF THE COURT TO REASSIGN THE

ACTION TO A DISTRICT COURT

JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 3]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Arvind Patel brought an action for unlawful detainer against defendants Avelina Sagnep

and Hermie Sagnep (collectively, “Defendants”) in Alameda County Superior Court on October 21,

2014. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 9.1

) Defendant Avelina Sagnep (“Avelina”), who is

proceeding pro se, removed the case from state court, alleging federal-question jurisdiction and

diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 2, 6.) Avelina also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(IFP Application, ECF No. 3.) None of the parties has consented or declined the undersigned’s

jurisdiction. Upon consideration of the record, the court grants Avelina’s IFP application. 

Nonetheless, because Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint presents only a state claim on its face,

Case 3:15-cv-00953-JST Document 5 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

 California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.90 specifies the time to file a response to the

complaint when a case was removed to federal court but subsequently is remanded. At this time, it

has no application here. 

3

 District courts have original jurisdiction over cases that arise under the law of the United

States. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.1.

C 15-00953 LB

ORDER 2

and the parties are not diverse, the court finds no basis for federal jurisdiction. The court thus orders

the Clerk of the Court to reassign the action to a district judge and recommends that the newlyassigned district judge remand the action to Alameda County Superior Court. 

STATEMENT

On October 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in Alameda

County Superior Court. In short, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are behind on their rent and that

they continue to occupy Plaintiff’s property in Fremont, California despite being served with a threeday notice to quit. At the time Plaintiff served the notice, Defendants owed $4,300 in rent, and the

fair rental value is $69.04 per day. Thus, through this action, Plaintiff seeks less than $10,000 in

damages. 

On March 2, 2015, Avelina removed the action to this court, asserting both federal question and

diversity jurisdiction. In the notice of removal, which Avelina titles as both a “Notice of Removal”

and as “Defendant, Avelina Sagnep’s Complaint for: Violations of 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. [Real

Estate Settlement Procedue Act] Calif. CCP 430.90,” Avelina also purports to bring claims against

Plaintiff for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.2

ANALYSIS

I. THE COURT GRANTS AVELINA’S IFP APPLICATION

Upon consideration of Avelina’s IFP application, the court finds that Avelina qualifies to avoid

paying the filing fee and grants the application.

II. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE ACTION

A. The Court Lacks Federal-Question Jurisdiction over the Action

A defendant in a state court may remove an action to federal court so long as the action could

have originally asserted federal-question jurisdiction.3

 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). The burden is on the

Case 3:15-cv-00953-JST Document 5 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 15-00953 LB

ORDER 3

removing defendant to prove the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v.

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9thCir. 1990). If, after a court’s prompt review

of a notice of removal, “it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto

that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28

U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against

removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941); Takeda v. Northwestern

Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985). 

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. Metropolitan

Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th

Cir. 1996). An actual or anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. 

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983);

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor can federal-question

jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49,

60 (2009). However, a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting necessary federal questions

from his or her complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, 463 U.S. 1 at 22.

Here, Plaintiff alleges a single claim against Defendants for unlawful detainer. (Complaint, ECF

No. 1 at 9.) 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. C 11-00451

WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. C

11-1894 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) .

Avelina nonetheless asserts that the court has federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff

allegedly violated RESPA. This statute does not appear on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, and

Avelina’s attempt to raise it, either as a federal defense to Plaintiffs’ unlawful detainer claim or as an

improperly alleged counterclaim, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60

(jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim); Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63

(jurisdiction must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint); Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042-43

Case 3:15-cv-00953-JST Document 5 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 15-00953 LB

ORDER 4

(jurisdiction cannot be predicated on actual or anticipated defenses). Accordingly, the court finds

that there is no federal-question jurisdiction to support removal of this action.

B. The Court Also Lacks Diversity Jurisdiction over the Action

Federal courts have original jurisdiction where the opposing parties are citizens of different

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Thus, in removal cases

where the purported basis of jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, removal is not permitted where a

defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action (even

if the opposing parties are citizens of different states). See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 

First, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In unlawful detainer actions, the right

to possession of the property is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiffs may collect only

damages that are incident to that unlawful possession. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas,

No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior

Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)). Plaintiff is requesting damages in the amount of $4,300 in

past due rent and of $69.04 per day, beginning on October 10, 2014. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 11.) 

The amount of damages at issue in this case does not come close to reaching the threshold amount. 

Second, even assuming the threshold amount for diversity jurisdiction were satisfied, removal

was not proper because Plaintiff filed suit in California, and Avelina, who is living in Plaintiff’s

property in Fremont, is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) prohibits removal where a

defendant in the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Avelina’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

orders the Clerk of the Court to reassign this action to a district judge, and recommends that the

newly-assigned district court judge remand the action to Alameda County Superior Court.

Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation with the district judge within

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

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the

district court.

Case 3:15-cv-00953-JST Document 5 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 15-00953 LB

ORDER 5

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00953-JST Document 5 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 5