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
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?