Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01382/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01382-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Botto
Defendant
Loving Life Real Estate, LLC
Plaintiff
Amelia Saldana
Defendant
Jose Saldana
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

LOVING LIFE REAL ESTATE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JORGE BOTTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01382-KAW 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND 

TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On March 14, 2019, Jorge Botto removed this unlawful detainer action from Napa County 

Superior Court. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) 

As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that 

the case be remanded to state court. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Loving Life Real Estate, LLC commenced this unlawful detainer action against 

Defendants Jose Saldana and Amelia Saldana in Napa County Superior Court on or around

January 3, 2019. (Not. of Removal, Exh 1 at 1.) Mr. Botto is not named in the complaint, 

although he may be a "Doe" Defendant as he appears to be a tenant living at the property at issue. 

The complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Id.) The case is a "limited 

civil case," in which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property located in Saint 

Helena, California. (Id.)

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff allegedly served a written notice to quit within three days. 

(Not. of Removal, Exh. 1 at 2.) On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant unlawful detainer 

suit in court. On March 14, 2019, Mr. Botto removed the action to federal court on the ground 

Case 3:19-cv-01382-EMC Document 5 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 4
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

that it presents a federal question. (Not. of Removal at 1-2.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A "federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may 

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at 

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). "[R]emoval statutes are strictly 

construed against removal." Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 

removal in the first instance," such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor 

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that 

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either 

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to 

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute 

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[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 . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Botto removed this unlawful detainer action from state court on the grounds that the 

district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

Case 3:19-cv-01382-EMC Document 5 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 4
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

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Mr. Botto claims that a federal question exists because it affects his "federally secured 

rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1983 [and] the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution . . . ." (Not. of Removal at 1.) Mr. Botto also asserts 

that a federal question exists because the sate court unlawful detainer is actually based on the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act ("PTFA"), and was merely "misnomered 'unlawful 

detainer.'" (Id. at 3.) Mr. Botto's rights in an unlawful detainer action, however, depend on the 

interpretation of state law. Further, Mr. Botto has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff's 

unlawful detainer claim will turn on a substantial question of federal law. The complaint, 

therefore, fails to present a federal question or a substantial question of federal law.

Moreover, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any 

additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding 

claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, 

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 

1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit 

removal). Accordingly, Mr. Botto's claim that the notice failed to comply with the PTFA does not 

establish federal question jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Mr. Botto's contention that there are 

federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced.

Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or 

counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that 

Mr. Botto's assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to 

introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions "where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is 

between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the 

opposing parties. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the 

Case 3:19-cv-01382-EMC Document 5 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

forum defendant rule, "a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity 

jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 

defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, 

Plaintiff's citizenship is unknown, and Mr. Botto is a citizen of California. Thus, the forum 

defendant rule applies, and the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: March 19, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01382-EMC Document 5 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 4