MMD Family Foundation et al v. Leech et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE SUA SPONTE REMAND. The December 2, 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

MMD FAMILY FOUNDATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

v.

9
10

JAMES LEECH, et al.,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE SUA SPONTE REMAND

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04967-JCS

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants James and Janeen Leach, pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from

14
15

state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The undersigned recommends that this

16

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

17

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

18

case will be reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, including action

19

on these recommendations. Any party may file objections to these recommendations within

20

fourteen days 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 at p. 9. 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.

15

Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. The federal statutory

16

and constitutional provisions that Defendants invoke in the Notice of Removal are federal

17

defenses, which do not provide a basis for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The

18

undersigned therefore finds no basis for federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be

19

remanded.1

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendants expressly state in the Notice of Removal that federal
jurisdiction is not based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Notice of Removal at 9.
In any event, Defendants could not properly remove the action to federal court from California
state court on the basis of diversity because it is apparent from the Notice of Removal that
Defendant James Leach is a local defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
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

De
ecember 2, 2016 Case Management Conferenc
2
M
t
ce.

5
6

Da
ated: October 11, 2016
r

7
8
9

___
__________
___________
__________
________
JO
OSEPH C. SP
PERO
hief
ate
Ch Magistra Judge

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