Le et al v. Gonzalez

Filing 5

ORDER for Reassignment to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Remand to State Court. Objections due by 8/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/14/2017. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

PHUC LE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.
DORA GONZALEZ,

Case No.5:17-cv-04514-HRL
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE REMAND TO STATE COURT

Defendant.

17
18

Defendant Dora Gonzalez seeks to remove this unlawful detainer action from the Santa

19

Clara County Superior Court. Having reviewed the record, and for the reasons stated below, the

20

undersigned recommends that this matter be remanded to the state court for lack of federal subject

21

matter jurisdiction.

22

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject

23

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly

24

construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is

25

proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus

26

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to

27

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be

28

remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks

1

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

2

Federal Question Jurisdiction

3

Defendant fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts
have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

5

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well-

6

pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank,

7

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not

8

satisfy this requirement. Id. Here, the notice of removal says that defendant’s civil rights have

9

been violated. However, allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the complaint cannot

10

provide this court with federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ complaint presents a claim arising

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

only under state law. It does not allege any federal claims whatsoever.

12

Diversity Jurisdiction

13

Defendant does not invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and

14

this court finds no basis for it anyway. Federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions

15

in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and

16

costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As a California defendant,

17

Gonzalez cannot remove this case here. Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. of California,

18

393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear that the presence of a local defendant at the

19

time removal is sought bars removal.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (stating that a case “may not be

20

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

21

State in which such action is brought.”). In any event, the complaint indicates that the amount in

22

controversy does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, unlawful detainer actions involve the right to

23

possession alone, not title to the property. So, the fact that the subject property may be worth

24

more than $75,000 is irrelevant. MOAB Investment Group, LLC v. Moreno, No. C14-0092EMC,

25

2014 WL 523092 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell Real Estate Investment LLC v.

26

Bracho, No. C12-02774RMW, 2012 WL 2906762 at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2012).

27

Civil Rights Removal Jurisdiction

28

Defendant nevertheless argues that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which
2

1

“provides an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, allowing a party to remove an

2

otherwise unremovable action where the party is asserting a federal claim of race discrimination

3

that ‘cannot [be] enforce[d]’ in the state courts.” Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Young, No. C-

4

14-3170 EMC, 2014 WL 7336696, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)

5

and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28 (1966)).1 A successful petition

6

for removal under Section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. First, the petitioner must assert, as

7

a defense, “rights that are given to [her] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial

8

civil rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

9

“Second, petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation
must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Id.
Here, defendant seems to assert that plaintiffs have violated California Code of Civil

12
13

Procedure § 128.7, which “provides that when an attorney or party presents a pleading, motion, or

14

similar paper to the court, an implied ‘certification’ as to its legal and factual merit is made, and is

15

subject to sanctions for violation of this certification.” Canterbury Lots 68, LLC v. De La Torre,

16

No. CV 13–00712 MMM (RZx), 2013 WL 781974 at *4 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2013) (citation

17

omitted). Defendant further states that “rules of evidence and civil procedure are applied without

18

equal protection” and that the “State Court is typically backed by the appellate department in

19

similar matters . . ..” (Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal at ECF pp. 2, 3). And, she says this case

20

involves “violations of Defendant’s civil rights on the basis of [her] national origin, namely

21

Hispanic (as a US citizen).” (Id. at p. 3).

22

Defendant’s attempt to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) fails because she does not

23

identify any “state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to

24

ignore [her] federal rights” or any “formal expression of state law that prohibits [her] from

25
1

26
27
28

Defendant does not claim that removal of this matter is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2), and there
is nothing to indicate that defendant has any right of removal under that subsection of the statute
anyway. See Peacock, 384 U.S. at 824 (holding that § 1443(2) “confers a privilege of removal
only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively
executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights”).
3

1

enforcing [her] civil rights in state court . . ..” Patel, 446 F.3d at 999 (emphasis added); see also

2

Canterbury Lots 68, LLC, 2013 WL 781974 at *5 (remanding an unlawful detainer action where

3

the defendant “does not, and cannot, identify any California state law or constitutional provision

4

that commands state courts to ignore an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”); Fed. Home Loan

5

Mortgage Corp. v. Cantillano, No. CV 12-01641 GAF (CMx), 2012 WL 1193613 at *3 (C.D.

6

Cal., Apr. 9, 2012) (remanding an unlawful detainer action where the defendants did “not identify

7

any California state law or California constitutional provision that denies them the opportunity to

8

raise their civil rights in the California courts” and instead “argue[d] only that these rights were

9

denied in their case and that unspecified provisions of the California Civil Code governing nonjudicial foreclosures and judicial evictions cause the violation of Hispanics’ civil rights in all

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

unlawful detainer proceedings.”). Moreover, defendant’s allegations, which are entirely

12

conclusory, are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. Gross Mortgage Corp. v. Al-Mansur,

13

No. C12-cv-03508-YGR, 2012 WL 3237183 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2012) (stating that “section

14

1443(1) “will not provide jurisdiction where allegations of discrimination are conclusory and

15

lacking factual basis.”).

16
17

Accordingly, this court finds that there is no basis for removal. Defendant is advised that
repeated attempts to remove this matter may result in sanctions.

18

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court

19

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further

20

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Santa Clara County

21

Superior Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation

22

within fourteen days after being served. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

23

Dated: August 14, 2017

24
25
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
4

1
2

5:17-cv-04514-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Michael T. Stoller [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
Todd Bennett Rothbard

[e-mail]

4
5
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
5