Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04999/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Land Home Financial Services Inc.
Plaintiff
Charmeaka Patillo
Defendant
Noel Patillo Sr.
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

LAND HOME FINANCIAL SERVICES 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOEL PATILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04999-DMR 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4

Defendants Noel Patillo Sr. and Charmeaka Patillo (“Defendants”) removed this case 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 from Contra Costa County Superior Court, where it was pending as a 

complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants. The notice of removal states one ground for 

removal: that the complaint presents a federal question such that the case could have originally 

been filed in this court. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5-7.) 

When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it “promptly,” and, “[i]f 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).1

Plaintiff and Defendants consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

The court concludes that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly 

remands this case to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

I. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

 

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff Land Home Financial Services, Inc. filed an ex parte application to 

remand this case to state court. [Docket No. 4]. Since this Court has a duty to determine whether 

federal subject matter jurisdiction exists sua sponte, it need not determine whether Plaintiff has 

met the standard for ex parte relief. 

Case 4:16-cv-04999-DMR Document 9 Filed 09/28/16 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 California

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “[T]he 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.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) 

(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to 

evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in 

removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 

n.2 (2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what 

is or should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. The implication of a federal question 

through issues raised by an answer or counterclaim does not suffice to establish federal question 

jurisdiction. Id. at 831; see also ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. 

Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] case may not be removed to federal 

court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s 

complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the 

case.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original)).

According to Defendants, a federal question arises because Plaintiff’s underlying state 

court action is based on a notice which “expressly references and incorporates” the Protecting 

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 (“PTFA”). (Notice of Removal ¶ 7.) The 

complaint simply alleges a state cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-7). As such, 

there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar, 482 

U.S. at 392 (explaining that “federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint,” which “makes the plaintiff the 

master of the claim,” such that “he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on 

state law”). 

Moreover, to the extent that Defendants contend that Plaintiff violated the PFTA by filing 

its claim prior to the expiration of the 90-day notice period (Notice of Removal ¶ 7), a federal 

defense or anticipated counterclaim does not confer jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, 535 U.S. at 

Case 4:16-cv-04999-DMR Document 9 Filed 09/28/16 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 California

831; see also Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 

2010) (federal defense based on PTFA’s ninety day rule does not support federal question 

jurisdiction). 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the court orders that this action be remanded to the Contra Costa 

County Superior Court and that the Clerk be ordered to close the case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:16-cv-04999-DMR Document 9 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 3