Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02546/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02546-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Carter
Defendant
Andrew Davis
Defendant
Shonta Rose-Scoggins
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

SHONTA ROSE-SCOGGINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT CARTER, ANDREW DAVIS 

AND DOES 1-5, 

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02546-TLN-CKD

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Robert Carter and Andrew Davis’ 

(“Defendants”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–3.) 

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are

GRANTED. The Court hereby remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of 

San Joaquin, due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about October 2, 2015, Plaintiff Shonta Rose-Scoggins (“Plaintiff”) brought an 

action against Defendants for possession of the real property known as 2106 Calhoun Court, 

Tracy, San Joaquin County, California, 95376 (“the Property”). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1

at 6.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants entered into a lease with Plaintiff to pay rent in the 

amount of $2,945.00 per month. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were 

Case 2:15-cv-02546-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/10/15 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

provided 60-day notice to pay rent or quit possession of the property, but Defendants failed to do 

so. (ECF No. 1 at 7.)

On December 9, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful 

detainer action from the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is 

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 

U.S. 974 (2005).

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.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. 

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants removed this case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 

Defendants argue that a federal question of law exists because Defendants filed a demurrer in 

state court, which they allege was a pleading that depended on the “determination of Defendants’ 

rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendants do not specify 

which rights and federal laws are implicated by their demurrer.

Case 2:15-cv-02546-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/10/15 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

The Complaint itself contains only a single claim for unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1 at 5–

8.) Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. The instant Complaint relies solely on California state law and does 

not mention expressly or impliedly any federal law. The well-pleaded complaint rule makes the 

plaintiff the master of his claim, so he may avoid federal jurisdiction by basing his claim 

exclusively on state law, as is the case here. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.

Defendants appear to allege that a federal question of law arises in their demurrer, but 

they fail to indicate what that federal question might be; nor does the demurrer provide any clues. 

Even if Defendants’ demurrer did provide a federal question, it would not provide a basis for 

removal. Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim 

raising a federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 49; 

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 1042–43. 

In summary, the state court Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for 

unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law and not under federal law. Thus, this action 

does not arise under federal law and no other grounds for federal jurisdiction are apparent. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal jurisdiction. See 

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the 

district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua 

sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

Thus for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

(ECF No. 2, 3) are GRANTED, and the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Joaquin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02546-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 3