Clement Holdings, LLC v. Winford Reece

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 26, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-04024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CLEMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-04024-KAW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT; ORDER 10 WINFORD REECE, GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 12

13 14 On July 3, 2024, Defendant Winford Reece removed this unlawful detainer action from 15 Alameda County Superior Court, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Not. of Removal, 16 Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.) 17 As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for 18 the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that 19 the case be remanded to state court. Additionally, the Court grants Defendant’s application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Clement Holdings, LLC commenced this unlawful detainer action against 23 Defendant in Alameda County Superior Court on or around March 7, 2024. (Not. of Removal at 24 9.) The complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a 25 “limited civil case,” in which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property located in 26 Emeryville, California, which Defendant occupies. 27 On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff allegedly served a written notice on Defendant to pay rent 1 detainer suit in state court, and summons was issued. (Not. of Removal at 9.) July 3, 2024, 2 Defendant removed the action to federal court on the grounds that it presents a federal question. 3 (Not. of Removal at 2.) 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court is presumed to lack 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 10 construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 11 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. 15 Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question 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 III. DISCUSSION 1 district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question. 2 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 3 Defendant claims that a federal question exists because various unspecified federal laws 4 have been violated. (Not. of Removal at 2.) Defendant’s rights in an unlawful detainer action, 5 however, depend on the interpretation of state law. Further, Defendant has not shown why the 6 resolution of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim will turn on a substantial question of federal law. 7 The complaint, therefore, fails to present a federal question or a substantial question of federal 8 law. 9 Moreover, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any 10 additional claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding 11 claims or defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, 12 Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 13 1145 (9th Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit 14 removal). Accordingly, Defendant’s claim that various federal laws have been violated does not 15 establish federal question jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Defendant’s contention that there are 16 federal questions at issue in this litigation is misplaced. 17 Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or 18 counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that 19 Defendants’ assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to 20 introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 21 B. Diversity Jurisdiction 22 District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in 23 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . 24 . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is 25 predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties. 26 Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant 27 rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be 1 State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, Plaintiffs citizenship is 2 || unknown, and Defendant is a citizen of California. Thus, the forum defendant rule applies, and 3 the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with 6 || the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings. The 7 Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 8 Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 9 within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 10 || Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 11 may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 12 || Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 13 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 14 |] Dated: July 26, 2024

A 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28