Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01036/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dorothy Browne
Defendant
Michael F. Hyatt
Plaintiff
Patricia M. Hyatt
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL F. HYATT AND PATRICIA M. 

HYATT TRUSTEES OF THE MICHAEL F. 

HYATT AND PATRICIA M. HYATT 

REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JUNE 23, 2001, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DOROTHY BROWNE; DOES 1 TO 10, 

 Defendants. 

2:16-cv-01036-JAM-AC 

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT 

 

 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes 

of Findings and Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) (“Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this Rule, a Judge may retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 

Judge.”). 

 On May 16, 2016, Defendant Dorothy Browne filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, 

seeking to remove an action from the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. Doc. 1. For the 

following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Sacramento. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action to federal court if the district 

court has original jurisdiction. Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file a 

Case 2:16-cv-01036-JAM-AC Document 4 Filed 05/18/16 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 

2 

notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The 

defendant seeking removal of an action to federal court has the burden of establishing federal 

jurisdiction in the case. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

 Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer action based on federal question subject 

matter jurisdiction. Doc. 1. However, Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction that is proper. Federal 

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal 

courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. 

Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which the United 

States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 

U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the Court sua 

sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power 

rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Furthermore, the law is clear in the Ninth Circuit that the removal statute should be strictly 

construed in favor of remand and against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 

698 (9th Cir. 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 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). 

 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject matter jurisdiction before this Court because 

the complaint filed in the state court apparently contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer 

based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within 

the province of state court. Defendants’ attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding 

Case 2:16-cv-01036-JAM-AC Document 4 Filed 05/18/16 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 

3 

claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 

(2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. 

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does 

not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is 

anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”). 

 In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction in removal cases, the “wellpleaded complaint rule” applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her 

complaint’ and can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 

994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. First 

Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.”). 

 Plaintiffs’ complaint raises a single state law claim. The face of a properly-pled state law 

unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ complaint avoids 

federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a federal issue through her answer. 

 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento 

for all future proceedings. 

Dated: May 17, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ 

 John A. Mendez, 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-01036-JAM-AC Document 4 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 3