Matt Hewitt v. Jennifer Price, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03481
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATT HEWITT, No. 2:25-cv-03481-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JENNIFER PRICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Matt Hewitt brought this unlawful detainer action against Defendant 19 Lesa Laatz under California state law on August 25, 2025. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A.) On 20 December 2, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to 21 remove the action from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento (Not. 22 of Removal (ECF No. 1).) 23 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 24 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Invs. 25 Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in 26 original). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal 27 jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th 28 Cir. 2010). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal 1 courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 2 jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation 3 omitted). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the court 4 resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Id. (citation omitted). That is, 5 federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to 6 the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 7 Cir. 1992). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 8 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand 9 under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit 10 Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 11 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 12 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 13 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 14 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 15 Audette v. Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th 16 Cir. 1999)). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to “what necessarily 17 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 18 by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the 19 defendant may interpose.” Id. at 1014–15 (quoting Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 489 20 U.S. 838, 841 (1989)). Accordingly, “a case may not be removed to federal court on 21 the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s 22 complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 23 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (cleaned 24 up); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to 25 show that a federal question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a 26 defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Here, Defendants have not shown that removal of this action to federal court is 2 appropriate. Plaintiff brings a single, straightforward unlawful detainer claim against 3 Defendants, which is purely a matter of state law. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank NA v. 4 Zimmerman, No. 2:15-cv-08268-CAS-RWX, 2015 WL 6948576, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5 10, 2015) (collecting cases in which courts remanded the matter back to state court 6 where the only claim was an unlawful detainer action). Defendants argue that federal 7 question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ pleading depends on the 8 determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law — namely 9 the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A)(B). But Defendants cannot invoke a 10 potential defense to the unlawful detainer action sounding in a claim based on 11 disability discrimination to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 12 U.S. at 392; Konrad v. Williams, No. 2:21-cv-00958-TLN-DB, 2021 WL 3159811, at *1 13 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2021); see also Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 14 1179,1183 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 If Defendants sought removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1332, removal would still be improper. The Court only has jurisdiction 17 under section 1332 where the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. 18 In determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint. Ibarra v. 19 Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Generally, “the sum claimed 20 by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” Id. (quoting St. 21 Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). Defendant, as the 22 removing party, has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 23 amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the time of 24 removal. See Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 25 2020) (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to seek past-due rent of $2,990.00 and $63.17 for each 27 day defendants remain in possession through the entry of judgment beginning on 28 August 31, 2025. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A at 3.) This amount falls well below the $75,000 1 | amount in controversy requirement. Thus, Defendant has failed to establish that this 2 | Court has diversity jurisdiction. See Canela, 971 F.3d at 850. 3 Remand to the Sacramento Superior Court is therefore appropriate and 4 | mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case 5 | tothe Sacramento Superior Court for all future proceedings. 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _December 3, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DJC6 - HEWITT25cv03481 .ud_v1

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28