Castle Creek Company, Inc. v. Stewart
Filing
6
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE SUA SPONTE REMAND. The Case Management Conference set for January 6, 2017 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
CASTLE CREEK COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
JESSIE STEWART,
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE
SUA SPONTE REMAND
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-05747-JCS
12
13
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Castle Creek Company, Inc. brought an unlawful detainer action in state court
14
15
against Defendant Jessie Stewart. Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court.
16
See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1). The undersigned recommends that this case be REMANDED sua
17
sponte to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. Because the parties
18
have not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge, this case will be
19
reassigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, including action on these
20
recommendations. Any party may file objections to these recommendations within fourteen days
21
of being served with a copy of this Report.
22
II.
23
ANALYSIS
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling
24
within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action
25
could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are
26
construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,
27
313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against
28
removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted).
1
Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive
2
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of
3
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
4
5
Removal ¶10. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that arise
6
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case
7
‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the
8
vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’”
9
Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
12
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide
13
14
15
Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may
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
16
17
18
19
20
21
Removal states that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend
[sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice
of Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a federal defense presented in the Answer provides no basis
for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. The undersigned therefore finds no basis for
federal jurisdiction, and recommends that the case be remanded. 1
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 Contra Cost County. T Case M
or
ta
The
Management
t
4
Co
onference se for January 6, 2017 is vacated.
et
5
6
7
8
Da
ated: Octobe 11, 2016
er
___
__________
___________
__________
________
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?