1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NADINE YASSA, No. 2:25-cv-01415-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANN STARR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 18 Nadine Yassa against Defendants Ann Starr, Adam Fakhreddine, and Al Fekhreddine. 19 On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, 20 seeking to remove this action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (Notice of 21 Removal (ECF No. 1).) 22 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 23 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 24 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 25 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 27 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 28 2009). 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. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 3 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 4 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 5 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 6 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 7 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 8 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 9 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 10 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 11 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 12 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 13 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 14 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 16 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 17 Cir. 2004). 18 Defendants suggest that removal is proper based on the basis of federal 19 question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2–3.) Defendants state that “Federal 20 question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend on the 21 determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 2.) 22 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 23 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 24 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 25 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 26 omitted) (quoting Audette v. Int. Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 27 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 F.3d at 28 1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 1 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 2 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 3 may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be 4 removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 5 plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 6 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. 7 DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 8 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 9 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or 10 counterclaim, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 11 Here, Defendants have not shown that removal of this action to this federal 12 court is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a straightforward unlawful detainer action 13 that is based entirely on state law. A federal claim is not raised in the complaint. 14 (Notice of Removal at 4–9.) “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question 15 is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” California, 215 16 F.3d at 1014. The cause of action brought by Plaintiff here is plainly based on state 17 law. Defendant’s reliance on federal law in defending against Plaintiff’s state law 18 claims does not suffice to confer jurisdiction on this Court because the defensive 19 invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. See Vaden, 20 556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; California, 215 21 F.3d at 1014. Because there is no federal question appearing in Plaintiff’s Complaint 22 in this case, removal on the basis of federal question jurisdiction is improper. 23 Defendants’ Notice of Removal also references 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which is 24 used for removal based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Removal 25 would still be improper based on diversity jurisdiction. As indicated by Defendants 26 themselves, Plaintiff and at least one Defendant are residents of California. (See ECF 27 No. 1-1.) Complete diversity of citizenship is required for the Court to have 28 //// 1 jurisdiction under section 1332. Defendants have not established that there is 2 complete diversity of citizenship. 3 Moreover, the Court only has diversity jurisdiction under section 1332 where 4 the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. In determining the amount 5 in controversy, courts first look to the complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 6 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NADINE YASSA, No. 2:25-cv-01415-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANN STARR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 18 Nadine Yassa against Defendants Ann Starr, Adam Fakhreddine, and Al Fekhreddine. 19 On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, 20 seeking to remove this action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (Notice of 21 Removal (ECF No. 1).) 22 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 23 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 24 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 25 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 27 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 28 2009). 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. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 3 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 4 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 5 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 6 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 7 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 8 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 9 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 10 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 11 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 12 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 13 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 14 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 16 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 17 Cir. 2004). 18 Defendants suggest that removal is proper based on the basis of federal 19 question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2–3.) Defendants state that “Federal 20 question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend on the 21 determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 2.) 22 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 23 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 24 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 25 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 26 omitted) (quoting Audette v. Int. Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 27 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 F.3d at 28 1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 1 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 2 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 3 may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be 4 removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 5 plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 6 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. 7 DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 8 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 9 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or 10 counterclaim, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 11 Here, Defendants have not shown that removal of this action to this federal 12 court is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a straightforward unlawful detainer action 13 that is based entirely on state law. A federal claim is not raised in the complaint. 14 (Notice of Removal at 4–9.) “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question 15 is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” California, 215 16 F.3d at 1014. The cause of action brought by Plaintiff here is plainly based on state 17 law. Defendant’s reliance on federal law in defending against Plaintiff’s state law 18 claims does not suffice to confer jurisdiction on this Court because the defensive 19 invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. See Vaden, 20 556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; California, 215 21 F.3d at 1014. Because there is no federal question appearing in Plaintiff’s Complaint 22 in this case, removal on the basis of federal question jurisdiction is improper. 23 Defendants’ Notice of Removal also references 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which is 24 used for removal based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Removal 25 would still be improper based on diversity jurisdiction. As indicated by Defendants 26 themselves, Plaintiff and at least one Defendant are residents of California. (See ECF 27 No. 1-1.) Complete diversity of citizenship is required for the Court to have 28 //// 1 jurisdiction under section 1332. Defendants have not established that there is 2 complete diversity of citizenship. 3 Moreover, the Court only has diversity jurisdiction under section 1332 where 4 the amount in controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. In determining the amount 5 in controversy, courts first look to the complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 6 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Generally, “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the 7 claim is apparently made in good faith.” Id. (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. 8 Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). Defendant, as the removing party, has failed 9 to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 10 exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal. See Canela, 971 F.3d at 11 849 (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). 12 Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $15,300 in unpaid rent and $57.33 per day accruing from 13 March 12, 2025.1 (Notice of Removal at 19–20.) This amount falls well below the 14 $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. Thus, Defendant has failed to establish 15 that this Court has diversity jurisdiction both due to a lack of complete diversity and 16 the amount in controversy. See Canela, 971 F.3d at 850. 17 Because there is no federal question appearing in Plaintiff’s Complaint and 18 because neither the complete diversity and amount in controversy requirements for 19 diversity jurisdiction are not satisfied, Defendants have failed to properly invoke this 20 Court’s jurisdiction. Remand to the Sacramento County Superior Court is therefore 21 appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Konrad v. Williams, 2021 WL 22 3159811 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) (remanding an unlawful detainer action to state court 23 where the defendant claimed the action involved the Fair Housing Act but no such 24 claim was raised in the complaint.) 25 //// 26 //// 27 1 The Court also notes that the unlawful detainer action is filed as a limited action that does not exceed 28 $35,000. (Notice of Removal at 7.) 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 2 || Superior Court for all future proceedings. 3 A IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _May 21, 2025 “Daniel CoD tto— Hon. Daniel It |. Cod 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 g DuCt -yessa25ev01415.unlawfuldetainer 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28