Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02635/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02635-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beverly J. Hancock
Plaintiff
Lloyd Mosley
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY J. HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

LLOYD MOSLEY,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-02635-TLN-DB

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Lloyd Mosley’s (“Defendant”) 

Notice of Removal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) For the reasons 

set forth below, Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 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 October 6, 2016, Plaintiff Beverly J. Hancock (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer 

action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1

at 1.) On November 4, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant asserts that removal is 

proper because (i) “[t]he complaint presents federal questions” and (ii) “[f]ederal question exists 

Case 2:16-cv-02635-TLN-DB Document 3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights 

and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶¶ 6, 10.) For the reasons stated 

below, this Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist and thus this case must be 

remanded.

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 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 392. 

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, 60–61 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

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

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendant argues that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or (b).1 

 

1 Defendant fails to explain how or why subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b). In fact, other than Defendant’s passing mention of §1441(b), Defendant fails to discuss 

diversity jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this Court discusses below why removal is improper under 

§1441(b).

Case 2:16-cv-02635-TLN-DB Document 3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 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

3

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) For jurisdiction to exist under § 1441(a), a federal question must be presented 

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

Defendant states without explanation that the “complaint presents federal questions.” (ECF No. 1 

at 2, ¶ 6.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer does not present a federal

question on its face. See, e.g., DVP, LP v. Champ, No. 1:15-cv-00074-LJO-SKO, 2015 WL 

12681672, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (“[A]n unlawful detainer action, on its face, fails to 

raise a federal question.”). Defendant further claims that his Answer implicates federal questions

because it requires a “determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal 

law.” (ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶ 10.) An answer cannot confer federal question jurisdiction on this 

Court. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60 (explaining federal jurisdiction can neither be “predicated on an 

actual or anticipated defense” nor “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”).

To the extent Plaintiff’s notice of removal seeks removal on the basis of Section 1441(b), 

this too fails. Section 1441(b) allows for a case to be removed to federal court on the basis of 

diversity jurisdiction if the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) are met. Section 1332(a) confers 

diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States.” In an unlawful 

detainer action, only the right to possession of the property is at issue, not the title. See Deutsche 

Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Yanez, ED-15-CV-02462-VAP-DTBx, 2016 WL 591752, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

February 11, 2016) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)). 

Consequently, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount sought in the complaint. 

See id. Here, Defendant fails to meet the $75,000 threshold as Plaintiff seeks less than $10,000 in 

her complaint. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) 

Thus, Defendant has failed to establish the burden of showing that jurisdiction before this 

Court is proper, and 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) (“[T]he 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.”).

/ / /

Case 2:16-cv-02635-TLN-DB Document 3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 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

4

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Joaquin. In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (See ECF No. 2.) The Court has reviewed this motion and finds that Defendant

meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02635-TLN-DB Document 3 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 4