Equity Residential Management, LLC v. Mancera

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE SUA SPONTE REMAND. The October 28, 2016 Case Management Conference is VACATED. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on October 11, 2016. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

WILLIAM MANCERA,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE SUA SPONTE REMAND

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-04059-JCS

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendant William Mancera, pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from state court

14
15

on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The undersigned recommends that this case be

16

REMANDED sua sponte to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. Because

17

the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this case will

18

be reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, including action on these

19

recommendations. Any party may file objections to these recommendations within fourteen days

20

of being served with a copy of this Report.

21

II.

22

ANALYSIS
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling

23

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action

24

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are

25

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,

26

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against

27

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted).

28

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive

1

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of

2

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
Defendant’s Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of

3
4

Removal ¶10. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise

5

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case

6

‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the

7

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’”

8

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

9

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded
complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide

12

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

13

392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may

14

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.
Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. Defendant’s Notice of

15
16

Removal states that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend

17

[sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice

18

of Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a federal defense presented in the Answer provides no basis

19

for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The undersigned therefore finds no basis for

20

federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be remanded. 1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendant has not invoked diversity as a basis for federal jurisdiction and
that removal on that basis would have been improper. The diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, a “civil action otherwise
removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties
in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). It is apparent from the Notice of Removal that Defendant is a
citizen of California and therefore he may not invoke diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 to
remove an action filed in California state court.
2

1
2

III
I.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stat above, th undersign recomme
ted
he
ned
ends that this action be
s

3

RE
EMANDED to the Califo
ornia Superio Court for Alameda Co
or
ounty. The Court vaca the
e
ates

4

Oc
ctober 28, 20 Case Management Conference
016
M
e.

5
6
7
8

Da
ated: October 11, 2016
r
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JO
OSEPH C. SP
PERO
hief
ate
Ch Magistra Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3