Maxwell Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Bracho, 5:12-cv-02774

Maxwell filed a state-law unlawful detainer in San Benito County Superior Court on April 25, 2012.
Defendants Bracho removed to federal court on May 30, 2012, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under the PTFA.
Removal relied on defenses/claims that notice to quit did not comply with PTFA.
Court applied the well-pleaded complaint rule, finding no federal question in the complaint.
Amount in controversy is under $10,000, so diversity jurisdiction would also be improper.
Court remanded the case to San Benito County Superior Court in an order dated July 13, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal based on federal-question jurisdiction was proper	Maxwell: no federal question in complaint	Bracho: PTFA defense creates federal question	Removal improper on federal-question grounds
Whether removal based on diversity jurisdiction was proper	Maxwell: amount in controversy under $75,000	Bracho: diversity exists	Removal improper for lack of diversity jurisdiction
Which party bears the federal-jurisdiction burden	Maxwell relies on state-law claim	Bracho seeks federal jurisdiction	Burden on removing party; not met here

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 (1989) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on defenses)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (federal jurisdiction cannot hinge on defense; must arise from plaintiff's complaint)
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (establishes well-pleaded complaint rule)
K2 AM. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (defense-based theories do not create federal jurisdiction)
Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2002) (defense-based federal questions do not establish removal jurisdiction)
Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1999) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with removal defendant)