Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00447-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
MD Atkinson Company Inc.
Plaintiff
Destrea Reese
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant Destrea Reese seeks the removal of the unlawful detainer action initiated by MD 

Atkinson Company, Inc., in Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CL-289579.

1

 (Doc. 1.) 

Because an action for unlawful detainer arises under California law, the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends the action be REMANDED to 

Kern County Superior Court.

I. Removal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court 

 

1

The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 

(9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of 

court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 

80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 

F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore, 

judicial notice is taken of the docket in Case No. S-1500-CL-289579.

MD ATKINSON COMPANY INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DESTREA REESE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00447 - --- - JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE 

ACTION 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Case 1:15-cv-00447-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 5
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

where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 

392 (1987). Specifically,

Except 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 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). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 

A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of 

receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, 

and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its 

propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 

676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the 

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt 

as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.

The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] 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); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural 

and jurisdictional defects and holding that a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus, 

the Sixth Circuit explained that a court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of 

Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).

II. Discussion and Analysis

Defendant Destrea Reese asserts that this court has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1441 because the “[p]laintiff has actually filed a Federal Question action in State Court.” 

(Doc. 1 at 2.) The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

Case 1:15-cv-00447-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 5
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

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. 

Therefore, the complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that 

[2] the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal 

law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 

F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 

U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

Significantly, the only cause of action identified by the plaintiff is for unlawful detainer. An 

unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law, but arises instead under state law. See 

Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful 

detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. 

Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a 

claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law”). Thus, the plaintiff

has not raised a claim that invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction.

In addition, Ms. Reese seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction because she claims the plaintiff 

violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 by providing insufficient notice before

initiating eviction proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 2-4.) However, claims arising under the Protecting Tenants 

at Foreclosure Act “are best characterized as defenses or potential counterclaims; neither of which are 

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint. First 

Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145066, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Dec.16, 

2011) (citing Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Moreover, “federal district courts 

have held that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not create a federal private right of 

action.” Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129905, at *7, n. 3 (E.D. Cal., 

Nov. 9, 2011). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action based upon 

Defendant’s claim that the plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. 

III. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party may not seek appellate review in federal court of a 

decision made by a state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Ninth Circuit explained,

Case 1:15-cv-00447-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Typically, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subjectmatter jurisdiction over a proceeding in which a party losing in state court seeks what in 

substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district 

court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the losers’ 

federal rights.

Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic 

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district court from 

appellate review of “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court 

judgments rendered before the district court proceeding commenced . . .”). Accordingly, the district 

court lacks jurisdiction over “claims . . . ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such 

that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 

F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, 485)).

Here, the state court docket indicates that the court has determined judgment should be entered 

against Defendant, and Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered “to prepare judgment for signature” on March 

23, 2015. Thus, it appears the Rooker-Feldman bars this court from review of the arguments presented 

by Defendant in the Notice of Removal. Moreover, given the posture of the case, it appears the

attempted removal of this action was designed only to thwart the state court judgment and to delay 

process; this is improper.

IV. Conclusion

Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 

jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”). Moreover, it appears Ms. Reese is seeking to obtain federal 

court review of a state court action which is prohibited. 

V. Order

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to this action

VI. Findings and Recommendations

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENED:

1. The matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kern County; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

Case 1:15-cv-00447-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00447-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 5