Ralph Partners II, LLC v. Tate

Filing 12

Order granting 8 Motion to Remand entered by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The court directs the clerk of court to remand this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Napa, for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

RALPH PARTNERS II, LLC,

Case No. 18-cv-03030-LB

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND AND REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT

v.
JESSIE M. TATE,

Re: ECF No. 1

Defendant.

15
16
17

OVERVIEW
Plaintiff Ralph Partners II, LLC, the owner of a residential property, filed an unlawful-detainer

18
19

case against a tenant, the defendant Jessie M. Tate, in the Superior Court of California, County of

20

Napa.1 Mr. Tate, representing himself, removed the action from state court on May 22, 2018,

21

asserting federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.2 Ralph Partners moved to remand the case

22

back to state court.3 Mr. Tate’s deadline to file a response to Ralph Partners’ motion to remand

23
24
25
1

26

Notice of Removal ‒ ECF No. 1 at 5‒8. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File
(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

28

2

Id. at 2; Civil Cover Sheet ‒ ECF No. 1-1.

3

27

Mot. to Remand ‒ ECF No. 8.

ORDER – No. 18-cv-03030-LB

1

was June 8, 2018.4 Mr. Tate did not file a response.5 Both parties consented to magistrate-judge

2

jurisdiction.6
Mr. Tate has not identified any federal question, and no basis for federal-court jurisdiction

3
4

appears on the face of the complaint. Additionally, there is not diversity jurisdiction. Remand to

5

state court therefore is appropriate.

6
7

ANALYSIS

8

Generally, a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court if there is either

9

diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)–(c). The burden is on the removing
defendant to establish the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990).

12
13

1. Federal-Question Jurisdiction
Mr. Tate claims that this case presents federal-question jurisdiction.7 He argues in his Notice

14
15

of Removal that federal question exists because “[p]laintiffs are in violation of 12 USC § 3708,

16

Implementing Regulation, § 1.1-1, Title 24 C.F.R. 220.814.”8 The complaint does not present any

17

federal questions and only states a state-law unlawful-detainer claim. Unlawful-detainer claims do

18

not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See,

19

e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. 3:11-cv-00451-WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D.

20

Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. 4:11-cv-01894-PJH, 2011 WL 1754053,

21

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx),

22

2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). As for Mr. Tate's argument that his demurrer

23
24

4

See Docket.

25

5

Id.

26

6

Consents – ECF Nos. 6, 10.

7

Notice of Removal ‒ ECF No. 1 at 1‒3.

8

Id. at 2.

27
28

ORDER – No. 18-cv-03030-LB

1

presents federal questions, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be

2

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question

3

jurisdiction to exist. A federal question raised only in a response to a complaint is not sufficient to

4

establish jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v.

5

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the defendant has not identified any federal

6

question in the complaint in his Notice of Removal, the case must be remanded to state court.

7
8

2. Diversity Jurisdiction
Mr. Tate asserts that this case presents diversity jurisdiction.9 Federal courts have original

9

jurisdiction where the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Here there is no diversity of citizenship as the

12

parties reside in California.10 Also, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.11 In

13

unlawful-detainer actions, the right to possession of the property is contested, not title to the

14

property, and the plaintiff may collect only damages that are incidental to that unlawful

15

possession. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. 10-CV-5478-PJH, 2011 WL 204322,

16

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (citing Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)). The

17

plaintiff seeks only restitution, possession of the premises, costs of suit, and $116.67 per day from

18

December 5, 2017, until it obtains a judgment or recovery of possession of the premises.12 The

19

damages do not exceed $75,000, and there is no diversity jurisdiction.

20
21
22
23
24
25

9

26

10

Mot. to Remand ‒ ECF No. 8 at 2; Civil Cover Sheet ‒ ECF No. 1-1.

11

Mot. to Remand ‒ ECF No. 8 at 2‒3.

12

Id. at 3.

27

Notice of Removal ‒ ECF No. 1 at 2; Civil Cover Sheet ‒ ECF No. 1-1.

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-03030-LB

CONCLUSION

1
2

The court directs the clerk of court to remand this action to the Superior Court of California,

3

County of Napa, for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at

4

any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

5

the case shall be remanded.”).

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: July 1, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

8
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
ORDER – No. 18-cv-03030-LB