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

STEVEN EDRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES K. BARR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-07395-JSC 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants James K. Barr 

and Judy A. Barr in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. The Barr 

Defendants, representing themselves, removed this action from Alameda County Superior Court. 

(Dkt. No.1.) Given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction appearing on the face of the complaint, 

the Court ordered the Barr Defendants to show cause (“OSC”) as to why this case should not be 

remanded. (Dkt. No. 3.) Although ordered to respond to the OSC by January 26, 2017, the Barr 

Defendants have failed to do so.

All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction (see Dkt. Nos. 5,6, 7), pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 7.) For the reasons explained below, the Court 

REMANDS this case to Alameda County Superior Court.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under” 

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 8 Filed 02/02/17 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

federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—“an 

actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal 

is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial 

Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a 

case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has 

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 

2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court “if at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c).

Here, Defendants cite both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as bases 

for removal. As to federal question jurisdiction, the removed complaint makes only a state-law 

claim for unlawful detainer. It is unclear from the Notice of Removal what federal laws are or 

may be implicated. Further, as noted above, it is the complaint that must allege a cause of action 

based on federal law to confer federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not do so. Any 

actual or anticipated defenses that Defendants plan to raise are not sufficient to establish federal 

jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60.

Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist in this case. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was 

filed in superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less than $10,000 in controversy. 

(See Dkt. No. 1 at 17, 19.) As such, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional 

threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a). In addition, 

only non-resident defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(b); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Once any “local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action 

cannot be removed by that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l 

Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the 

complaint alleges that Defendants reside at the subject property located in Alameda, California, 

and are therefore citizens of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) Indeed, in their notice of removal 

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 8 Filed 02/02/17 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

Defendants allege that they are California citizens. (Id. at 8.) As Defendants are “local,” 

removal is improper on this basis as well. 

Given Defendants’ failure to respond to the OSC regarding remand and the clear lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction on the face of the complaint, remand is required.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS this case to Superior Court of California 

for the County of Alameda. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 8 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 3