1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDINA PROPERTY LLC, 7 Case No. 19-cv-06168-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 REMAND AND VACATING MOTION LAURA FOX, et al., HEARING SET FOR NOVEMBER 22, 10 2019 Defendants. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 3

12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 This is an unlawful detainer action that Plaintiff Andina Property LLC (“Andina”) 14 originally filed in state court. Defendants Laura and Beth Fox removed to federal court on the 15 basis of federal question jurisdiction, asserting as a defense to their eviction that Andina has 16 violated various federal statutes and regulations. See Docket No. 1 (Removal) (alleging that 17 Andina has “violated numerous Federal laws and statutes, under Title 24 C.F.R. 220.814 – 18 Election of Action, Chapter 2, Subtitle B”). Andina brings a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) 19 asking the Court to remand the case to state court on the basis that Defendants’ removal was 20 untimely and there is no federal jurisdiction over this case. For the reasons stated below, the Court 21 GRANTS the Motion and vacates the motion hearing set for November 22, 2019.1 22 II. ANALYSIS 23 A. Legal Standard 24 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling 25 within their jurisdiction. Generally, a defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if 26 the action could have been filed originally in federal court.

. The removal 27 1 statutes are construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 2 v. Sheets,

, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption 3 against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 4 omitted). Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. 5 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the 6 burden of showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

(9th 7 Cir. 2004). 8 District courts have jurisdiction—commonly known as “federal question” jurisdiction— 9 over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 11 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 12 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Thus, it is now settled law that a case may not be removed 14 to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 15 plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question 16 truly at issue.”

. 17 B. Defendants Have Not Demonstrated the Existence of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 18 Unlawful detainer is a state law claim that does not implicate federal law. See, e.g., Litton 19 Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, C 10 05478 PJH,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 20 2011). No other basis for federal question jurisdiction is apparent from Andina’s Complaint. 21 Whether Defendants allege violations of federal law in their Notice of Removal in this case is 22 irrelevant to jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Likewise, Defendants’ allegations in 23 their response to the Motion that Andina has violated a long list of federal laws are at most 24 defenses to Andina’s unlawful detainer claim, which is a purely state law claim. The Court also 25 notes that Defendants have not alleged that there is diversity jurisdiction under

. 26 Therefore, the Court finds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case. 27 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. This case shall be REMANDED 3 the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 8, 2019 □ J PH C. SPERO 8 ief Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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