Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01878/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01878-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citi Mortgage, Inc.
Plaintiff
Evangelina Luera
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITI MORTGAGE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVANGELINA LUERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01878-AWI-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THIS ACTION BE REMANDED 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

OBJECTIONS DUE: 21 DAYS

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 26, 2014, Defendant Evangelina Luera ("Defendant") filed a document 

entitled "NOTICE OF REMOVAL - FEDERAL QUESTION" (the "Removal Notice"). (Doc. 1.) 

The Removal Notice alleges that removal is proper because the "matter is one that may be 

removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because it is a civil action arising under 

federal law and in which a federal statute is drawn in controversy." (Doc. 1, ¶ 3.) It appears that 

Defendant is seeking to remove this action on the ground that Plaintiff has expressly referenced 

and incorporated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (the "Act") in its complaint. 

(Doc. 1, ¶ 7.) Defendant also maintains the Act is placed into controversy by Plaintiff's complaint 

because it provides a ninety-day notice period prior to the filing of any state eviction proceeding; 

Defendant claims Plaintiff did not allow the ninety-day period to lapse before filing his claim.

Case 1:14-cv-01878-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/03/14 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

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS this action be

REMANDED to the Fresno County Superior Court. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a), "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 the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division 

embracing the place where such action is pending." A district court has "a duty to establish 

subject matter jurisdiction over the 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). 

"If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic 

Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov't of 

Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). The court presumes that a 

case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts, and the burden of establishing the 

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106-07; 

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). 

B. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for federal question claims and states 

that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 

Plaintiff's complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer pursuant to California law. 

Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of real property located at 4753 E. Washington Avenue, 

Fresno, California (the "Property"), by virtue of a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

was served with a written notice to quit the property, but Defendant refused to vacate the Property 

and continues in possession without Plaintiff's permission or consent. As an exhibit to the 

complaint, Plaintiff attached a copy of the notice to quit served on Defendant, which informed 

Case 1:14-cv-01878-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/03/14 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

Defendant the notice was provided pursuant to the California Law as well as the Protecting 

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. (Doc. 1, p. 16.)

Defendant claims that Plaintiff's complaint creates a controversy arising under federal law 

– i.e., Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (the "Act") because it was cited in the Notice 

to Quit served on Defendant and because Plaintiff did not comply with the Act. The only cause of 

action in the complaint is for unlawful detainer, which arises under California law. The claim 

itself does not arise under federal law, regardless that the Notice to Quit referenced federal law. 

See Rubicon Equity Grp., Inc. v. Lawhorn, No. 1:14-cv-00409-LJO-GSA, 2014 WL 1329734, *2 

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (unlawful detainer action is a matter of state law). Although Defendant 

maintains she has a defense under the Act because of improper notice, a defense that invokes 

federal law is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1331. Removal 

cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal 

question, whether filed in state or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-60 

(2009); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) ("a case may not be 

removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's 

complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"). 

Plaintiff's claim of unlawful detainer arises under state law and not under federal law. As such, 

there is no jurisdictional basis for removal since an unlawful detainer action, on its face, fails to 

raise a federal question.1

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be REMANDED to the 

Fresno County Superior Court.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one 

 

1 Defendant does not assert diversity as a basis on which the Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction. 

Nonetheless, the Court notes that under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b), when an action is founded on diversity, such 

action "shall be removable only if none 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)(2). Defendant specifically asserts that she is a 

resident of Fresno County, California. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6). As such, Defendant's California residency negates removal 

jurisdiction based on diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

Case 1:14-cv-01878-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/03/14 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

(21) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-

17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01878-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/03/14 Page 4 of 4