Fried et al v. Mission Property Management Co., Inc.

Filing 5

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to a district judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS to remand case to state court; ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Maurice Fried, Cindy Fried. Objections to the report and recommendation are due by 6/23/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 6/6/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sis, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

MISSION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CO., INC.,

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND
TO STATE COURT; ORDER
GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

CINDY FRIED, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

12
13

Case No. 4:17-cv-02785-KAW

On May 15, 2017, Defendant Cindy Fried removed this unlawful detainer action from

14

Alameda County Superior Court, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Not. of Removal,

15

Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.)

16

As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for

17

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that

18

the case be remanded to state court. Additionally, the Court grants Defendant’s application to

19

proceed in forma pauperis.

20

I.

21

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mission Property Management Co. commenced this unlawful detainer action

22

against Defendants Cindy Fried and Maurice Fried in Alameda County Superior Court on or

23

around March 3, 2017. (Not. of Removal at 11.) The complaint contains a single cause of action

24

for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a “limited civil case,” in which Plaintiff seeks immediate

25

possession of a certain property located in Newark, California, which Defendants occupy. Id. at ¶

26

3.

27
28

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants signed a fixed term lease on or about March 5, 2016, and
are now demanding possession of the property due to the expiration of the lease. (Compl., Dkt

1

No. 1 at 11-13 ¶¶ 6, 9.)
On May 15, 2017, Defendant Cindy Fried removed the action to federal court on the

2
3

grounds that it presents a federal question. (Not. of Removal at 2.)1

4

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court is presumed to lack

5
6

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.

7

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may

8

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at

9

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly
construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

12

removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor

13

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that

14

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question

15
16

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179,

17

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil

18

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

19

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

20

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either

21

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to

22

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute

23

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,

24

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal

25

defense . . . , even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v.

26

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

27
1

28

Co-plaintiff Maurice Fried did not explicitly join in the removal, but, for the purposes of this
report and recommendation, the Court will assume that he consents to the removal.
2

III.

1
2
3

DISCUSSION

Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action from state court on the grounds that the
district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

4

A.

5

Defendant claims that a federal question exists because Defendants are bona fide tenants

Federal Question Jurisdiction

6

pursuant to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), and Plaintiff failed to allege

7

compliance with PTFA, serving only a three day notice to quit. (Not. of Removal ¶¶ 3, 7.)

8

Defendants’ rights in an unlawful detainer action, however, depend on the interpretation of state

9

law. Further, Defendant has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim
will turn on a substantial question of federal law. The complaint, therefore, fails to present a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

federal question or a substantial question of federal law.

12

Moreover, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any

13

additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding

14

claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome,

15

Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143,

16

1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit

17

removal). Accordingly, Defendant’s claim that there was a violation of the PTFA does not

18

establish federal question jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Defendant’s contention that there are

19

federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced.

20

Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or

21

counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that

22

Defendants’ assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to

23

introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

24

B.

Diversity Jurisdiction

25

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in

26

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between .

27

. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is

28

predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties.
3

1

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant

2

rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be

3

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the

4

State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, Plaintiff’s citizenship is

5

unknown, and Defendants are citizens of California. Thus, the forum defendant rule applies, and

6

the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
IV.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with
the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings. The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

12

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.

13

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

14

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS

15

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

16
17

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: June 6, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4