Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01685/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01685-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CA Pacific Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff
Keith Turner
Defendant
Sybilla Turner
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 19-cv-01685-LB

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

San Francisco Division

CA PACIFIC HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEITH TURNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01685-LB

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

CASE TO STATE COURT

Re: ECF No. 1

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff CA Pacific Holdings, LLC, the owner of a residential property, filed an unlawfuldetainer case against defendants Keith Turner and Sybilla Turner in the Superior Court of 

California, Los Angeles County.1 Ms. Turner removed the case from state court, asserting federalquestion and diversity jurisdiction.2 Ms. Turner has not established either federal-question or 

diversity jurisdiction. Remand to state court thus is appropriate.

The parties have not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. This case therefore must be 

reassigned. The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge and 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 5. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶¶ 5–6).

Case 4:19-cv-01685-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 19-cv-01685-LB 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

recommends that the newly assigned judge sua sponte remand the case back to the Superior 

Court.3

ANALYSIS

Subject to certain requirements and limitations, a defendant generally may remove a case from 

state court to federal court where the case presents either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)–(c). The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for the 

federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 

712 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may 

remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

Ms. Turner argues that this case presents federal-question jurisdiction because “CA PACIFIC 

HOLDINGS, LLC is, and at all times relevant to this removal, was the trustee for a securities 

special purpose vehicle trust, organized for the purchase and sell of securities” and that “[t]he 

purchase and sell of securities involved, unknowingly, defendant’s property which was a federally 

related mortgage.”4 CA Pacific Holdings’s complaint does not present any federal questions, only 

a state-law unlawful-detainer claim. Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, 

without more, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. 

Lopez, No. 3:11-cv-00451-WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC 

Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. 4:11-cv-01894-PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 

2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). As for Ms. Turner’s argument that CA her mortgage was “federally 

related,” the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face 

 

3 The undersigned notes that Ms. Turner removed this case to the wrong district. Los Angeles County 

(where her state-court case was pending) is in the Central District of California, not the Northern 

District, so she should have removed her case there, not here. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As removal is 

improper in any event, however, the undersigned recommends remand rather than transfer for the sake 

of judicial efficiency.

4 Notice of Removal – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶¶ 8–9).

Case 4:19-cv-01685-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/03/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 19-cv-01685-LB 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

of the plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. No 

federal question is presented on the face of the complaint here.

Nor is there diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Turner, who presumably is residing at the property at 

issue (located in California), appears to be a citizen of California, and, according to the California 

Secretary of State’s website, CA Pacific Holdings is a citizen of California as well.5 Additionally, 

the complaint alleges less than $10,000 in damages,6 well under the $75,000 requirement for 

diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The court therefore does not have diversity jurisdiction 

over this case.

Because the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, sua sponte remand 

is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge. The 

undersigned recommends that the newly assigned district judge sua sponte remand this case back 

to the Superior Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. 

Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to review of the issue in the district court.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: April 3, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5 Cal. Sec’y of State, Business Search, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?

filing=False&SearchType=LPLLC&SearchCriteria=CA+Pacific+Holdings%2C+LLC&

SearchSubType=Keyword (last visited Apr. 3, 2019).

6 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 5.

Case 4:19-cv-01685-PJH Document 6 Filed 04/03/19 Page 3 of 3