(UD)(PS) Homecoming At Creekside LLC v. Valiente
2:23-cv-01129-DAD-DB
E.D. Cal.Aug 31, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Homecoming at Creekside LLC brought a state-law unlawful detainer action in Sacramento County Superior Court.
- Defendant Marylou Valiente, proceeding pro se, removed the case to federal court on June 13, 2023, asserting she has a federal-law defense.
- Defendant also moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this court.
- The district court noted it has a sua sponte duty to determine subject‑matter jurisdiction and that removal statutes and federal-question jurisdiction are narrowly construed.
- The court applied the well‑pleaded complaint rule: federal jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s complaint, not anticipated defenses.
- The court remanded the case to Sacramento County Superior Court for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and denied the IFP motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists for removal | Complaint asserts only state unlawful detainer claims (no federal question) | Removal proper because defendant has a federal-law defense | No federal question on face of complaint; removal improper; remand required |
| Disposition of IFP motion after remand | N/A | Defendant sought leave to proceed IFP in federal court | IFP motion denied as moot because case was remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court duty to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (removal statute strictly construed; ambiguity resolved in favor of remand)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s well‑pleaded complaint)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (defensive federal questions do not confer removal jurisdiction)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (anticipation of a federal defense does not create federal‑question jurisdiction)
- Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 1997) (remand under §1447(c) is mandatory)
- California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand is required where federal jurisdiction is lacking)
- California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining the well‑pleaded complaint rule)