J.B. Cattle Holdings LLC v. Zac Zane Fancher, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01425
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 J.B. CATTLE HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01425-KES-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO TULARE COUNTY 12 v. SUPERIOR COURT 13 ZAC ZANE FANCHER, et al., Doc. 1 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action originally brought under California law by plaintiff 18 J.B. Cattle Holdings LLC against defendants Zac Zane Fancher and Jesse Fancher. On October 19 27, 2025, defendants, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court from the Tulare County 20 Superior Court. Doc. 1. After reviewing the record and the papers, the Court, sua sponte, 21 ORDERS this action be remanded to the Tulare County Superior Court. 22 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized 23 by Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. 24 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah 25 Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter 26 jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” 27 United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 1 the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Demartini v. Demartini, 964 F.3d 813, 818 2 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 Section 1447(c) “is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of 4 establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” Acad. of Country Music v. 5 Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, 6 Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)). If there is doubt as to the right of removal, a federal 7 court must reject jurisdiction and remand the case to state court. Matheson v. Progressive 8 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). If the defendant fails to meet its burden 9 of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); 10 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The 11 defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”). Where it appears, as it does 12 here, that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall 13 be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 14 An action may be removed to federal court if the federal court could exercise original 15 jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Here, defendants assert the Court has 16 jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332. See Doc. 1 at 1. Although 17 removal is proper when an action presents a federal question or where there is diversity of 18 citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. 19 §§ 1331, 1332(a), the Notice of Removal fails to establish federal question jurisdiction or 20 diversity jurisdiction. 21 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 22 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 23 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” California ex rel. 24 Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) 25 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts 26 look to what “necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his [or her] own claim in the bill 27 or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is 1 complaint attached to the Notice of Removal indicates that the only cause of action asserted by 2 the plaintiff is unlawful detainer, which arises under state law and does not provide a basis for 3 federal question jurisdiction. See Federal National Mortgage Association v. Suarez, No. 1:11-cv- 4 01225-LJO-GSA, 2011 WL 13359134, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer 5 actions are strictly within the province of state court”); Mathew v. O’Malley, No. 21-cv-02216- 6 JST, 2021 WL 2981978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021) (collecting cases). 7 Likewise, defendants fail to properly plead a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 8 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have diversity jurisdiction over actions where the amount in 9 controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are diverse in citizenship. “Where it is not facially 10 evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must 11 prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional 12 threshold.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. Defendants fail to properly plead the amount in 13 controversy. Although defendants indicate that the subject property’s value exceeds $75,000, 14 “[i]n an unlawful detainer action, the appropriate measure of damages is the amount sought in the 15 complaint, not the value of the property.” Ward v. Hernandez, No. EDCV 13-01458 JGB, 2013 16 WL 5840445, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013). Accordingly, the defendants fail to properly 17 plead this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly: 3 1. This action is REMANDED to the Tulare County Superior Court, pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 2. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to the clerk of the Tulare County 6 Superior Court. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ October 30, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28