Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01658-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leland Clark
Defendant
Natoma Meadows Homeowners Association
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATOMA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND CLARK, and DOES 1 to 

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01658-GEB-DAD

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On August 4, 2015, Defendant, in pro per, filed a 

Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. 

(Notice of Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) For the following 

reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Sacramento for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

“There is a ‘strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction,’ and the removing party has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

 

* The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a 

Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this 

case.

Case 2:15-cv-01658-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 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

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendant alleges in the Notice of Removal that federal 

question jurisdiction justifies removal. (NOR & 3.) Specifically, 

Defendant contends: 

Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice 

which expressly references and incorporates 

the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 

2009,” 12 U.S.C. § 5201. Further, this 

statute is drawn in controversy in this 

action because the federal statute provides 

for a ninety (90) day notice period prior to 

the filing of any state eviction proceeding; 

Defendant asserts and alleges that Plaintiff 

did not allow the ninety day period to lapse 

before filing his claim.

(Id. at & 7.)

However, review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff

alleges “one [claim] . . . for unlawful detainer under state law, 

and under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s claims 

or defenses may not serve as a basis for removal.” Polymatic 

Props., Inc. v. Mack, No. 2:12-cv-2848-LKK-EFB PS, 2012 WL 

5932618, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing Takeda v. Nw. 

Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985); see also

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Ghosal, No. 14cv2582-GPC(WVG), 

2014 WL 5587199, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (remanding 

unlawful detainer action sua sponte). Therefore, Defendant has 

not shown the existence of federal question removal jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-01658-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 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

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

Dated: August 4, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01658-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 3