Navdeep Sandhu v. Andrew Lacewell

Opinion

Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-03575-TLN-CKD

v. ORDER ANDREW LACEWELL, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Andrew Lacewell’s (“Defendant’s”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Solano County Superior Court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff Navdeep Sandhu (“Plaintiff”) brought an action for unlawful detainer against Defendant in Solano County Superior Court for possession of real property known as 264 Bridgewater Circle, Suisun City, California (the “Property”). (ECF No. 1 at 10.) On December 11, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal. (See generally id.) 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Federal question jurisdiction is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendant has not shown removal of this action to federal court is appropriate. Defendant argues in his notice of removal that this action involves a federal question because Plaintiff’s right to relief “requires the Court to determine whether federally imposed and federally incorporated statutory conditions were satisfied as predicates to eviction[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Further, Defendant contends the Complaint implicates and relies on different federal statutes. (Id. at 2–3.) However, upon review, the Complaint only sets forth an unlawful detainer claim, which is a matter of state law. Kim v. Krietz, No. 2:21-CV-00251-TLN-JDP, 2021 WL 1081130, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021) (finding similarly). Further, federal question jurisdiction cannot be established on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). In other words, federal question jurisdiction does not exist even if Defendant intends to raise such questions in response to the Complaint. Finally, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 so there are also no grounds for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Given the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the Court to sua sponte remand this case. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot, and the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Solano County Superior Court. ITIS ORDERED. Date: December 11, 2025 7, : / py TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE