Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06168/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andina Property LLC
Plaintiff
Beth Fox
Defendant
Laura Fox
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

ANDINA PROPERTY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06168-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND VACATING MOTION 

HEARING SET FOR NOVEMBER 22, 

2019

Re: Dkt. No. 3

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an unlawful detainer action that Plaintiff Andina Property LLC (“Andina”)

originally filed in state court. Defendants Laura and Beth Fox removed to federal court on the 

basis of federal question jurisdiction, asserting as a defense to their eviction that Andina has 

violated various federal statutes and regulations. See Docket No. 1 (Removal) (alleging that 

Andina has “violated numerous Federal laws and statutes, under Title 24 C.F.R. 220.814 –

Election of Action, Chapter 2, Subtitle B”). Andina brings a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) 

asking the Court to remand the case to state court on the basis that Defendants’ removal was 

untimely and there is no federal jurisdiction over this case. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion and vacates the motion hearing set for November 22, 2019.1

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. Generally, a defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if 

the action could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal 

 

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case 3:19-cv-06168-JCS Document 10 Filed 11/08/19 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

statutes are construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 

v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption 

against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. 

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the 

burden of showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th 

Cir. 2004). 

District courts have jurisdiction—commonly known as “federal question” jurisdiction—

over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded 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.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Thus, it is now settled law that 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 concede that the federal defense is the only question 

truly at issue.” Id. at 393.

B. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated the Existence of Federal Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction

Unlawful detainer is a state law claim that does not implicate federal law. See, e.g., Litton 

Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, C 10 05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 

2011). No other basis for federal question jurisdiction is apparent from Andina’s Complaint. 

Whether Defendants allege violations of federal law in their Notice of Removal in this case is 

irrelevant to jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Likewise, Defendants’ allegations in 

their response to the Motion that Andina has violated a long list of federal laws are at most 

defenses to Andina’s unlawful detainer claim, which is a purely state law claim. The Court also 

notes that Defendants have not alleged that there is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Therefore, the Court finds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Case 3:19-cv-06168-JCS Document 10 Filed 11/08/19 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

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. This case shall be REMANDED 

the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06168-JCS Document 10 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 3