Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Galt Eillend, LTD
Plaintiff
Maridel Weaver
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GALT EILLEND, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIDEL WEAVER, DOES 1 to 5,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01156-MCE-KJN-PS

ORDER

On May 27, 2016, Defendant MARIDEL WEAVER, proceeding in pro se, filed a 

Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Sacramento County Superior 

Court.

1

 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and 

may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the 

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal 

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, 

Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 

 1 Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to 

a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01156-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 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

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a). However, a 

review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, 

Plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8. Even 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal describes the case as “an unlawful detainer action” filed 

in state court. Id. at 1. 

“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 fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 

complaint “establishes 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)). 

Here, Plaintiff’s one sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, 

Defendant argues that she has a defense under federal law. “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.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of 

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).

Accordingly:

1. The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case 

number (No. 16UD01953) in the proof of service.

Case 2:16-cv-01156-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 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

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 

moot.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD01953. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01156-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 3