Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Ramos ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND Case No. 20-cv-01607-HSG 2016, LLC, 8 ORDER REMANDING CASE TO Plaintiff, STATE COURT 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 RENEE SHIZUE RAMOS, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund2016, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against 14 Defendant Renee Shizue Ramos on October 8, 2019, in Alameda County Superior Court. See Dkt. 15 No. 1 at ECF 11–15. On March 04, 2020, Defendant removed the case to this Court, invoking 16 federal question jurisdiction based on the “constitutional provisions of due process before 17 dispossession of the sale” and the “equitable right of redemption doctrine.” See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 4. 18 Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, the Court sua sponte 19 REMANDS the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a 22 State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 23 removed” to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts “shall have original jurisdiction of 24 all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1331. 26 For removal to be proper, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the 27 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 1 removal statute is also strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 2 || F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that 3 || the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Jd. Courts must 4 || reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.; 5 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 6 || lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 7 Il. DISCUSSION 8 A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a single claim 9 for unlawful detainer premised solely on California law. See No. 1 at ECF 11-15. In her notice of 10 removal, however, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's complaint “disguised a central 11 constitutional issue.” See Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Even if Defendant were protected by some 12 constitutional provision, however, it is well-settled that anticipated defenses or counterclaims 13 cannot establish a federal question because they do not appear on the face of the well-pleaded 14 || complaint. See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 3 15 defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court... .”); see also Ajello a 16 v. Farnung, No. 19-CV-06994-HSG, Dkt. No. 8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019); Wescom Credit Union 3 17 || v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF SSX, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An 18 || unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”). The Court finds that no federal 19 question is present on the face of the complaint, and that it thus does not have subject matter 20 || jurisdiction over this action. 21 || I. CONCLUSION 22 The Court accordingly REMANDS the action to Alameda County Superior Court. 23 Defendant’s in forma pauperis application, see Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is 24 || directed to close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 3/9/2020 Abseperel 5 □ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge