Weiqing Yan v. Equaan D. Smith, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06481
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WEIQING YAN, Case No. 25-cv-06481-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE REMAND v. 9

10 EQUAAN D. SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Weiqing Yan filed an unlawful detainer action in the Alameda County Superior 14 Court against defendants Equaan Smith, Russell Robinson, and Ruslan Vdovicenco. Vdovicenco, 15 acting pro se, filed a notice of removal alleging federal question jurisdiction on the basis of his 16 belief that Yan violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq. 17 (PTFA). Dkt. No. 1. Vdovicenco subsequently filed a “counter-complaint” against Yan and 18 others on claims of breach of an oral agreement and unlawful eviction. Dkt. No. 8. Yan asks to 19 remand the case to state court, Dkt. No. 12, and to strike Vdovicenco’s counter-complaint, Dkt. 20 No. 13. She requests an award of attorneys’ fees for the remand motion. Dkt. No. 12 at 7-8. The 21 parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the case is remanded to Alameda County 22 Superior Court. 23 Yan’s complaint did not furnish a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar 24 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The complaint alleges only a claim of unlawful 25 detainer under California state law. Dkt. No. 1 at ECF p. 7-9. Vdovicenco’s belief that the PTFA 26 may be a defense to unlawful detainer is not grounds for removal to federal court. A federal 27 defense to a state law claim does not create federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc., 482 1 PTFA for [Vdovicenco] to theoretically assert” as an affirmative claim. Van-Greunen, 2025 WL 2 1870750, at *1 (citing Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1169-73 (9th Cir. 2013)). 3 Vdovicenco did not seek removal based on diversity jurisdiction, and the Court concludes 4 that it cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of 5 citizenship of each plaintiff from each defendant, and an amount in controversy that exceeds 6 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Healy v. FCA US LLC, No. 20-cv-01802-JD, 2020 WL 3868799, 7 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2020) (quoting Caterpillar Inc., 519 U.S. at 68). Yan’s complaint 8 expressly stated that the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000. Dkt. No. 1 at ECF p. 7. 9 Vdovicenco did not prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the damages incident to the 10 allegedly unlawful possession exceed $75,000. Coleman v. Hat World, Inc., No. 23-cv-03437-JD, 11 2024 WL 422079, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024). In addition, a case “may not be removed” under 12 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) if any party “served as [a] defendant[ ] is a citizen of the State in which such 13 action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The complaint indicates that defendants resided in the 14 at-issue property in California, and nothing in Vdovicenco’s removal papers suggested they do not 15 live in California or should not be considered residents of California. 16 The request for attorneys’ fees is denied. “An order remanding the case may require 17 payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the 18 removal.” Healy, 2020 WL 3868799, at *3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). “The standard for 19 awarding fees turns on the ‘reasonableness of the attempted removal.’” Id. (quoting Lussier v. 20 Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008)). “‘Absent unusual circumstances,’ 21 the Court may award attorney’s fees under Section 1447(c) ‘where the removing party lacked an 22 objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.’” Id. (quoting Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 23 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)). “But ‘removal is not objectively unreasonable solely because the 24 removing party’s arguments lack merit, or else attorney’s fees would always be awarded whenever 25 remand is granted.’” Id. (quoting Lussier, 518 F.3d at 1065). “Put plainly, fees and costs will not 26 be awarded just because a remand is granted.” Id. 27 1 Although the notice of removal was not well taken, Vdovicenco is a pro se litigant facing 2 eviction, and is entitled to some benefit of the doubt. An award of attorney’s fees is not warranted 3 in these circumstances. 4 The case is remanded to Alameda County Superior Court. The motion to strike is 5 terminated without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 21, 2025 8 9 JAMES PONATO 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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