Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07139/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ranjit Kaur Singhru
Plaintiff
Mitchel Smith
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

RANJIT KAUR SINGHRU,

Plaintiff,

v.

MITCHEL SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07139-DMR 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IFP 

APPLICATION AND REMAND CASE 

TO SUPERIOR COURT

Pro se Defendant Mitchel Smith (“Mr. Smith”) removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1441 from Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. [Docket No. 1 (Notice of 

Removal).] The underlying case appears to be an unlawful detainer action. Mr. Smith has also filed 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket No. 2.]

Not all parties have filed a declination or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the court issues this Report and Recommendation and 

reassigns this case to a district judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that the IFP 

application be granted and that summary remand be ordered.

I. IFP APPLICATION

Having evaluated Mr. Smith’s financial affidavit, the court finds that he has satisfied the 

economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and therefore recommends that the IFP 

application be granted. The court next turns to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Smith filed the Notice of Removal on November 23, 2018. The first page of the Notice 

displays what seems to be the case number for the underlying state court action: PS18-1124. Notice 

of Removal at 1. Ranjit Kaur Singhru (“Mr. Singru”) is the named plaintiff. Id. The Notice contains 

allegations relating to conduct by Bank of New York Mellon (“Bank”), which is not a party to this 

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/28/19 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

case. See id. at 2-5. Mr. Smith alleges that the Bank fraudulently sold his home by procuring “false 

court documents.” Id. at 3. Attached to the Notice are several documents that appear to be 

communications from Mr. Smith to the Bank and its loan servicer, Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, 

requesting verification that the Bank is the authorized holder of his mortgage debt. Id. at 14-23. 

There is also a document labeled “Petition for Verification of Debt Else Release of Claim.” Id. at 

24. However, there is no case number on that document and no indication that it relates to an 

existing action. Id.

The only documents that appear to relate to the underlying state court action with case 

number PS18-1124 are (1) a Notice to Vacate for the address 4525 Lariat Lane, Oakley, CA 94561 

and (2) a Writ for Possession of Real Property. Id. at 6-13. These documents contain the same case 

number as the case number written on the Notice of Removal. They list Mr. Singhru as the plaintiff,

and are on standard pleading forms for the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. 

Id. These documents appear to indicate that the underlying state court case is an unlawful detainer 

action by Mr. Singhru against Mr. Smith.

On January 22, 2019, the court ordered Mr. Smith to file a copy of the underlying complaint. 

[Docket No. 6.] On February 1, 2019, Mr. Smith filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. [Docket 

No. 8.] In that filing, he explains that he “mistakenly filed [the case] under the person who 

fraudulently bought it,” apparently referring to Mr. Singhru. Id. He states that he “would like to 

voluntarily dismiss” this case but “reserve[s] the right to file a damage claim against Bank of New 

York Mellon.” Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and 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) (citations omitted). “[T]he 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.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) 

(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to 

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/28/19 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

evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in 

removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 

n.2 (2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what 

is or should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. 

Here, Mr. Smith’s Notice of Removal alleges various claims against the Bank relating to the 

fraudulent sale of his home. It does not contain any allegations relating to Mr. Singhru, the 

underlying state court case, or the basis for the court’s jurisdiction over this matter. The only 

documents that refer to the state court case appear to be part of an unlawful detainer action by Mr. 

Singhru against Mr. Smith. The court ordered Mr. Smith to file a copy of the underlying complaint. 

[Docket No. 6.] Instead, Mr. Smith filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, stating that he mistakenly 

filed the case under Mr. Singhru’s name and that he requests dismissal of this action. [Docket No. 

8.]

Based on the above facts, although Mr. Smith may have intended to file a complaint against 

the Bank relating to a mortgage in Mr. Smith’s name, he did so through an improper removal of the 

unlawful detainer action filed against him in Contra Costa Superior Court. There is no basis for the 

exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case, which is governed by state 

law. “If 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.” Cal. ex 

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 387 

F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447). 

Accordingly, the court recommends remanding this case to the Superior Court for Contra 

Costa County.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/28/19 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the court recommends that Mr. Smith’s IFP application be granted 

and that this action be remanded to the Contra County Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to 

reassign this case to a district judge.

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

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 10 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 4