Supanich et al v. Ned

Filing 3

ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/2015 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; RECOMMENDING that this action be remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento; RECOMMENDING that th e Clerk of Court be directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the Clerk of Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento referencing case no. 14UD09746; RECOMMENDING that the Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case; REFERRING this matter to Judge John A. Mendez; ORDERING that any objections be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROBERT SUPANICH & SOPHIE
SUPANICH,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER AND
v.

14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0202-JAM-KJN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YVONNE NED,

16

Defendant.

17
This is an unlawful detainer action that was removed to this court by defendant Yvonne

18
19

Ned, proceeding without counsel, from the Sacramento County Superior Court on January 26,

20

2015. (ECF No. 1)1 Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
Defendant’s application in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the

21
22

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the court grants defendant’s request to

23

proceed in forma pauperis.
The determination that a party may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

24
25

required inquiry. A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject

26

matter jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins.

27
28

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

1

Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had

2

a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the

3

parties raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir.

4

1996). Because subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties, a district court must

5

remand a case if it lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n,

6

Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sparta Surgical Corp. v.

7

Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998)); see also 28 U.S.C. §

8

1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

9

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”). For the reasons outlined below, the court finds that it

10

lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action and recommends that the action be

11

remanded to state court.

12
13
14
15
16

In relevant part, the federal removal statute provides:
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such
action is pending.

17

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”

18

Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “The

19

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” id., and removal jurisdiction

20

“must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,” Geographic

21

Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation

22

marks omitted).

23

A federal district court generally has original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a

24

federal question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

25

United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy

26

exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

27
28

In regards to federal question jurisdiction, federal courts have “jurisdiction to hear,
originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint
2

1

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action, or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

2

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v.

3

Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983); see also Republican Party of Guam v.

4

Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]he presence or absence of federal-

5

question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that

6

federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s

7

properly pleaded complaint.” Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1091 (citation and quotation marks

8

omitted). “In determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based upon a federal question,

9

the court must look to the complaint as of the time the removal petition was filed.” Abada v.

10

Charles Schwab & Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks

11

omitted). Mere reference to federal law is insufficient to permit removal. See Smith v. Indus.

12

Valley Title Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 90, 93 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere presence of a federal issue in a

13

state cause of action does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction”). Also, defenses

14

and counterclaims cannot provide a sufficient basis to remove an action to federal court. See

15

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir.

16

1994); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821-22 (9th Cir. 1985).

17

Here, removal cannot be based on federal question jurisdiction. The state court pleadings

18

and papers accompanying the removal notice establish that the state court action is nothing more

19

than a simple unlawful detainer action involving real property located in Folsom, California. This

20

court has no jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, which are brought pursuant to state law

21

and fall strictly within the province of the state court.

22

Defendant contends that federal question jurisdiction exists here, because her answer to

23

the unlawful detainer complaint purportedly depends on the determination of rights and duties

24

under federal law. However, any defenses based on federal law must generally be raised in the

25

state court action and do not provide a basis for removal. “A case may not be removed to federal

26

court on the basis of a federal defense,...even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s

27

complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the

28

case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of
3

1

Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also

2

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

3

law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal

4

preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”)

5

Furthermore, this action cannot be removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. First, the

6

amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, because plaintiff’s complaint specifically does

7

not seek more than $10,000. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Second, even if the amount in controversy

8

exceeded $75,000, defendant is a citizen of California, and therefore cannot remove the action

9

from a California state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (“Any

10

civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right

11

arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without

12

regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable

13

only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the

14

State in which such action is brought”) (emphasis added).

15

Based on the aforementioned analysis, the court finds that it lacks federal subject matter

16

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action brought pursuant to California law.

17

CONCLUSION

18
19

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

20

IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

21

1. The action be REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

22

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the Clerk of the

23

Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case number (14UD09746) in the

24

proof of service.

25

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case.

26

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

27

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

28

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
4

1

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

3

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

4

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

5

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

6

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: January 27, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5