Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00464/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Bellamy
Defendant
Regina Harrison
Defendant
Kibby Road LLC
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

KIBBY ROAD LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BELLAMY, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-00464-DAD-SMS

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

MATTER TO THE STANISLAUS COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. Nos. 1)

This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by plaintiff Kibby 

Road LLC against defendants David Bellamy and Regina Harrison. On April 4, 2016, defendants 

removed this case from the Stanislaus County Superior Court to this court. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Defendants assert that the basis for removal is the presence of a federal question on the grounds 

that “Defendant‟s federally secured rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. §§§1981, 1982 and 1983 the 

First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution are being directly and 

systematically impaired, infringed upon, and denied.” (Id. at 2.)

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action 

sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell 

& Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 

599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 

Case 1:16-cv-00464-DAD-SMS Document 2 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of 

the federal courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 

jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 

F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely 

on the plaintiff‟s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. 

Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 

“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all 

ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected 

if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 599 

F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “If 

at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 

case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. 

NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). See also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 

375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c).

“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.” California v. United States, 

215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). See also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 F.3d at 

1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the 

plaintiff‟s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything in 

anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” 

California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal 

defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff‟s complaint and both parties concede 

that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

Case 1:16-cv-00464-DAD-SMS Document 2 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see 

also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 

question lurks somewhere inside the parties‟ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would 

arise under federal law.”).

Here, defendants David Bellamy and Regina Harrison have not shown that removal of this 

action to this federal court is appropriate. The complaint filed by plaintiff is a straight-forward

unlawful detainer action that is based entirely on state law. As stated above, defendants rely 

solely on defenses to the complaint in attempting to establish federal jurisdiction. However, the 

defensive invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this court‟s jurisdiction. See Vaden, 

556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; California, 215 F.3d at 

1014. 

Because there is no federal question appearing in plaintiff‟s complaint, defendants have 

failed to properly invoke this court‟s jurisdiction. Remand to the Stanislaus County Superior 

Court is appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 

1107; Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257.

Accordingly,

1. This action is remanded forthwith to the Stanislaus County Superior Court, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

2. The court directs the Clerk of the Court to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00464-DAD-SMS Document 2 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 3