Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02066/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mathias Langlotz
Defendant
Michelle Langlotz
Defendant
U.S. Bank National Associates
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATHIAS LANGLOTZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-02066-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND; ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND REASSIGNING CASE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 

On April 20, 2016, Defendants Mathias Langlotz and Michelle Langlotz filed a notice of 

removal of this unlawful detainer case filed by Plaintiff against Defendants in Contra Costa 

County Superior Court on February 29, 2016, as well as applications on behalf of each of them to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). As the parties have not yet consented to this 

Court's jurisdiction, the Court issues this Report and Recommendation and reassigns this case to a 

district judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ Applications to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and recommends remanding this matter to state court. 

Defendant Mathias Langlotz’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis adequately 

alleges his poverty. Defendant is not employed, his monthly expenses appear to exceed his 

monthly income, and he has two dependents. He does not own a home and does not have a bank 

account. He has $20.00 in cash. Therefore, Defendant qualifies for In Forma Pauperis status, and 

his Application is granted. 

Defendant Michelle Langlotz’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis adequately 

alleges her poverty. Defendant is not employed, her monthly expenses appear to exceed her 

monthly income, and she has two dependents. She does not own a home and does not have a bank 

account. She has $20.00 in cash. Therefore, Defendant qualifies for In Forma Pauperis status, and 

her Application is granted. 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-WHA Document 5 Filed 04/25/16 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 Californi

a

However, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case and the case should be 

remanded. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought 

in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 

removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the 

district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “If 

at any time before final judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Thus, “[f]ederal 

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 

Id. (citation omitted). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.; see also Abrego v. 

Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). Removal jurisdiction may be based on 

diversity of citizenship or on the existence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Whether 

removal jurisdiction exists must be determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint. 

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). 

Although Defendants base their notice of removal on federal question jurisdiction, none 

exists. When a civil action over which the federal courts have original jurisdiction is brought in 

state court, the defendant may remove the action to federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

However, a case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only when a federal question 

appears on the face of the properly pleaded complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 

(2002) (“The well-pleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case “arises under” federal 

law for purposes of § 1331.”); see also Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 

(9th Cir. 2002) (“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.”). Here, the face of 

the complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer. No federal question appears 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-WHA Document 5 Filed 04/25/16 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 Californi

a

on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. Because the complaint does not provide any basis for 

removal, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Defendants suggest that a federal question exists because they filed a demurrer that they 

assert “ depends on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal 

law.” Federal question jurisdiction, however, cannot be premised on an issue raised in a demurrer. 

Gomez v. G.E. Contreras, Inc., 2009 WL 363724, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2009) (court refuses to 

“jettison the well-pleaded complaint rule, which federal courts have applied to determine the 

existence of federal question jurisdiction for more than a century, and adopt a new ‘well-pleaded 

subsequent pleading’ rule”). Even if this was not the case, the demurrer does not raise a federal 

question. Rather, Defendants’ notice of removal states that the ground for the demurrer is 

defective notice under California law. Dkt. 1 at p. 2. 

Moreover, Defendants do not base their notice of removal on diversity jurisdiction, and no 

such basis is evident from the complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has diversity 

jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value 

of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” The complaint does not allege Plaintiff’s citizenship. 

The complaint also does not indicate that the damages at issue meet the jurisdictional minimum. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends remanding this case to the Contra Costa County 

Superior Court. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation 

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. 

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

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2016 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02066-WHA Document 5 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3