Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06205/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Israel Garcia
Defendant
Yolanda Velazquez Garcia
Defendant
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION 

TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISRAEL GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06205-JCS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE SUA SPONTE REMAND

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., brought an unlawful detainer action in Contra Costa 

County Superior Court against Defendants Israel Garcia and Yolanda Velazquez Garcia. 

Defendant Israel Garcia (“Garcia”), proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court. See Notice 

of Removal (dkt. 1). The notice of removal is styled as both a removal and a complaint. The 

undersigned recommends that this case be REMANDED sua sponte to the Superior Court of 

California for the County of Contra Costa. 

II. ANALYSIS

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of 

Case 3:16-cv-06205-WHA Document 5 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 3
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

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

Defendant’s Notice of Removal carries the headings “Notice of Removal” and “Complaint 

For: Violations of 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. [Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”)] 

Calif. C.C.P. 430.90.” The document does not cite the legal standards governing removal and 

instead is styled as a complaint that invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

based on the assertion of federal claims under RESPA. See Notice of Removal ¶3. Nonetheless, 

to the extent Garcia has removed a pending action brought against him in state court, the Court 

construes the claims in his Notice of Removal as counter-claims. Federal question jurisdiction 

under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In order for removal to be proper, however, the federal 

question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. 

DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Removal jurisdiction “cannot be based on a counterclaim or 

cross-claim raising a federal question,” regardless of whether it is filed in state or federal court. 

Redevelopment Agency of City of San Bernardino v. Alvarez, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1115 (C.D. 

Cal. 2003) (citing Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281, 38 S.Ct. 237, 239, 62 

L.Ed. 713 (1918) (“It is also settled that a case, arising under the laws of the United States, 

nonremovable on the complaint, when commenced, cannot be converted into a removable one by 

evidence of the defendant ..., but that such conversion can only be accomplished by the voluntary 

amendment of his pleading by the plaintiff. . . .”)). Because the underlying unlawful detainer 

complaint in this action alleges only violations of California state law, the undersigned finds no 

basis for federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be remanded. 1

 

1

The Court notes that Garcia has not invoked diversity as a basis for federal jurisdiction and in 

any event, he could not remove the action on that basis because he is, according to the allegations 

in the Notice of Removal, a citizen of the State of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (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.”). 

Case 3:16-cv-06205-WHA Document 5 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that this action be 

REMANDED to the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County. The Case Management 

Conference set for January 27, 2017 is vacated. Because the parties have not consented to the 

jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this case will be reassigned to a United States 

district judge for further proceedings, including action on these recommendations. Any party may 

file objections to these recommendations within fourteen days of being served with a copy of this 

Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06205-WHA Document 5 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 3