Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00854/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00854-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of New York Mellon
Plaintiff
Andy Bilotti
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

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDY BILOTTI,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0854 MCE DAD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By Notice of Removal filed April 21, 2015, this unlawful detainer action was removed 

from the Sacramento County Superior Court by defendant Andy Bilotti, who is proceeding pro se. 

Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be “strictly 

construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). See also Syngenta 

Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov‟t of Martinduque v. Placer 

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 

is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992). “„The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking 

removal.‟” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) 

Case 2:15-cv-00854-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

(quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). See also Provincial 

Gov‟t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. In addition, “the existence of federal jurisdiction 

depends solely on the plaintiff‟s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” 

ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep‟t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th 

Cir. 2000). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

In removing this action, defendant asserts that this court has original jurisdiction over the 

action because “[p]laintiff‟s claim is based upon a notice which expressly references and 

incorporates the „Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,‟ 12 U.S.C. ' 5201.” (Notice of 

Removal (Dkt. No. 1) at 3.) However, it is evident from a reading of plaintiff‟s complaint filed in 

the Sacramento County Superior Court that this is nothing more than a garden-variety unlawful 

detainer action filed against the former owner of real property located in California and that it is 

based wholly on California law without reference to any claim under federal law. (Id. at 13.)

As such, the complaint does not involve any “claim or right arising under the Constitution, 

treaties or laws of the United States” that would have permitted plaintiff to file this action 

originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). It is also evident from defendant‟s Notice of 

Removal that any federal claims that could conceivably be presented in this action arise solely 

from defendant‟s own affirmative defenses and not from the plaintiff‟s unlawful detainer 

complaint. See ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC, 213 F.3d at 1113. Thus, the defendant has

failed to meet his burden of establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to the 

Sacramento County Superior Court and that this case be closed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document presenting objections 

should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 

to objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The 

Case 2:15-cv-00854-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 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

3

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court‟s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 28, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\BNYM0854.ud.f&rs

Case 2:15-cv-00854-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 3