1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 20-cv-00404-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION, AND REMANDING CASE 10 JANETH M. ROMERO, Re: Dkt. No. 5 Defendant. 11

12 This is an unlawful detainer action filed by plaintiff U.S. National Bank Association 13 against defendant Janeth Romero. Romero, representing herself, removed the case from state 14 court. Dkt. No. 1. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler filed a report and recommendation concluding 15 that Romero has “not established federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and remand to state 16 court thus is appropriate.” Dkt. No. 5. 17 Romero filed an objection on the ground that “this matter brings forth a federal question as 18 to whether a statute, that prohibits Defendant from bringing cross claims to protect her property 19 interest, is constitutional.” Dkt. No. 6 at 3. But as Magistrate Judge Beeler determined, “the 20 ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the 21 plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. A federal 22 question raised only in response to a complaint does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.” 23 Dkt. No. 5 at 3 (citing Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,

(1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 24

(9th Cir. 1996)). 25 For a case to be within the federal question removal statute, “a right or immunity created 26 by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the 27 plaintiff’s cause of action. . . . A genuine and present controversy, . . . must exist with reference 1 answer or by the petition for removal.” Gully v. First Nat. Bank,

(1936). 2 || These well-established principles support the conclusion that defendant Romero’s objection to the 3 |} report and recommendation cannot be sustained. 4 Defendant Romero’s objection is consequently overruled, and the Court adopts Magistrate 5 || Judge Beeler’s well-reasoned report and recommendation. For the reasons articulated in that 6 report and recommendation as well as in this order, this case is ordered remanded to the Superior 7 Court of California for the County of Alameda. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 11, 2020 10 11 JAMES PONATO 12 United ptates District Judge

15

16

(«17

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