Ana C. Salazar v. Mario Martinez, 2:15-cv-08025

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court; defendant removed the case to federal court.
Removal raised claims of federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
Complaint contains only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not allege damages exceeding $75,000.
Defendant asserted federal defenses and other grounds for federal jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal.
Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court record and questioned federal subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	Complaint raises only state-law unlawful detainer claims	Federal-law affirmative defenses or issues create federal question jurisdiction	No — federal jurisdiction cannot rest on anticipated federal defenses; plaintiff’s state claims control
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	No allegation of diversity or amount > $75,000	Removal met diversity/amount in controversy	No — not all parties are diverse and amount in controversy not shown by preponderance; underlying action is limited ($25,000)
Whether court may remand sua sponte for lack of SMJ	N/A	N/A	Yes — court must remand if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and may raise SMJ sua sponte
Burden of proof for removal jurisdiction	N/A	Defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction	Defendant failed to meet burden; remand required

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal is statutory and statutes strictly construed)
Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (1918) (state suits remain in state court absent congressional authorization)
Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutes authorizing removal construed narrowly)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing party; jurisdictional facts contested)
Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2013) (removal standards)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden to prove amount in controversy)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction nonwaivable; remand required if lacking)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (SMJ may be raised anytime, including sua sponte)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal-law affirmative defense does not make case removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defense alone cannot create federal jurisdiction)