Mathews v. O'Malley

Filing 17

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 15, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
THOMAS MATHEW,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

v.

9

KEVIN O’MALLEY,

10

Re: ECF No. 6

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 21-cv-02216-JST

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas Mathew’s motion to remand. ECF No. 6. The Court

13
14

will grant the motion.

15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Plaintiff initially brought this action for unlawful detainer on September 18, 2020, in Santa

17

Clara County Superior Court. ECF No. 2 at 3; ECF No. 6-2 at 8.1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

18

Kevin O’Malley is unlawfully in possession of Plaintiff’s residential property, located at 4540

19

Cadwallader Avenue, San Jose, CA 95121 (“the Property”). ECF No. 6-2 at 11. Plaintiff filed its

20

complaint as a “limited civil case” seeking less than $25,000 in damages. Id.

21

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into an oral agreement with Defendant in November 2016

22

to allow Defendant to occupy a motorhome owned by Plaintiff located at the Property at no cost.

23

Id. at 21. Defendant has not made any rental or utility payments for his occupancy and use of the

24

Property. Id. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has “caused many issues” that have

25

required Plaintiff to “notify and warn [Defendant] on multiple occasions to protect [Plaintiff’s]

26
27
28

Because Defendant’s notice of removal is incomplete, and because the documents are
incorporated by reference in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court takes judicial notice sua sponte of the
exhibits included in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, including Plaintiff’s underlying unlawful
detainer complaint, Defendant’s answer, and Plaintiff’s notices to quit. ECF No. 6-2.
1

1

family and property.” Id.
On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Sixty-Day Notice to Quit. See ECF

2
3

No. 6-2 at 2. On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Three-Day Notice to Perform or

4

Quit. See id. at 5. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action in Superior Court on September 18,

5

2020. See id. at 8. On September 30, 2020, Defendant filed his answer to the complaint in state

6

court. See id. at 28. On March 30, 2021, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed this action to

7

federal court claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff moves to

8

remand, arguing that there is neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 6.

9

Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the motion on April 5, 2021. ECF No. 8. Defendant did not
file a response.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

12

DISCUSSION
“A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction

13

or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)

14

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). If the district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the action must

15

be remanded back to state court. Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005). It is

16

the removing defendant’s burden to establish the basis for federal court jurisdiction. Nishimoto v.

17

Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

Because Plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court construes the allegations of the notice of

19

removal liberally. Franklin v. Sargent, No. EDCV1602370CJCDTBX, 2016 WL 6820763, at *1

20

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016); see also Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)

21

(instructing that courts “have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally”) (alteration and

22

citations omitted).

23
24

1.

Diversity Jurisdiction

There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction. The Civil Cover Sheet to the Notice of

25

Removal shows that all parties reside in San Jose, California. ECF No. 1-1. The complaint

26

alleges less than $25,000 in damages, below the $75,000 requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 28

27

U.S.C. § 1332(a).

28
2

2.

1

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Defendant’s notice of removal appears to claim federal question jurisdiction because “the

2
3

unlawful detainer procedure and proceedings conducted by the landlord are completely in

4

violation of the United States Constitution,” “the proceedings [are] occurring in violation of [] 15

5

U.S.C. [§] 1692(A), and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” ECF No. 2 at 2.

6

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff argues that there are no federal questions presented in this “run-of-the-

7

mill unlawful detainer complaint” and that “there are no substantial issues of federal law.” ECF

8

No. 6 at 4. The Court agrees.
“Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks

9

federal question jurisdiction.” Petaluma Theatre Square, LLC v. Hirsch, No. 19-cv-00026-LB,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2019 WL 1171162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2019) (collecting cases), report and recommendation

12

adopted, No. 19-cv-00026-JST, 2019 WL 1168538 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019); see also Saratoga

13

Fund Holdings, LLC v. Walker, No. 14-cv-04629-JST, 2014 WL 6969260, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

14

8, 2014) (finding no basis for jurisdiction in “unlawful detainer claim pursuant to California Code

15

of Civil Procedure § 1166”). Furthermore, a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis

16

of a federal defense. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 10

17

(1983); see also Partners v. Gonzalez, No. C-10-02598 EDL, 2010 WL 3447678, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

18

Aug. 30, 2010) (“To the extent that Defendant may have raised federal law issues in the answer or

19

believes that the state court [unlawful detainer] action was filed in violation of Defendant’s due

20

process rights, those issues do not provide a basis for removal.”).
Accordingly, there is no cognizable basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in this dispute.

21

CONCLUSION

22

The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly,

23
24

the Court hereby REMANDS the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Clerk shall

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1
2
3
4
5

close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 15, 2021
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

6
7
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
4