1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 8 9 RICHARD SASO and KRISTI SASO, Case No. 21-cv-02030-BLF

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 11 v. MOTION TO REMAND; AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST 12 JOYCE GENHO, FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 13 Defendant. [Re: ECF 8]

14

15 16 Plaintiffs Richard and Kristi Saso move to remand this unlawful detainer action, which 17 Defendant Joyce Genho removed from the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The Sasos also 18 seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to remand. This Court 19 previously vacated the hearing on the motion and advised the parties that the matter would be 20 submitted without oral argument upon the filing of Genho’s opposition or the expiration of time to 21 oppose. See Order Vacating Hearing, ECF 13. 22 On April 13, 2021, the Sasos filed a notice of non-opposition, advising the Court that 23 Genho had not filed opposition by the April 12, 2021 deadline to do so. See Notice of Non-Opp., 24 ECF 15. On April 14, 2021, Genho filed a late opposition, stating that she had not been notified 25 by the Sasos or the Court that her opposition was due on April 12, 2021. See Opp., ECF 16. In 26 reviewing the proofs of service filed by the Sasos, showing that Genho was served with both the 27 motion for remand and the Court’s order vacating the hearing, the Court discovered that the 1 408 Escalona Drive. See POS re Mot. to Remand, ECF 10; POS re Order, ECF 14. Under these 2 circumstances, the Court accepts Genho’s opposition as timely. 3 For the reasons discussed below, the motion to remand is GRANTED and the motion for 4 attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 The Sasos filed this unlawful detainer action in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court on 7 February 22, 2021, alleging the following facts. See Compl., Exh. to Pet. for Removal, ECF 2-1. 8 In December 2020, the Sasos purchased a piece of residential real property located at 408 9 Escalona Drive in Capitola, California. See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9. The sellers, Clif and Julie Jarvis, had 10 been leasing the property to Genho on a month-to-month basis. See Compl. ¶ 6. The Jarvises 11 gave Genho written notification of the impending sale in both September 2020 and October 2020, 12 advising Genho that the buyers intended to occupy the premises without a tenant and that she 13 would have to vacate. See Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. After escrow closed in December 2020, the Sasos 14 served Genho with a 60-day eviction notice. See Compl. ¶¶ 11-13. However, Genho has refused 15 to vacate the property. See Compl. ¶ 16. 16 Genho, proceeding pro se, removed the unlawful detainer action to federal district court on 17 March 23, 2021. See Not. of Removal, ECF 1. The Sasos’ motion to remand is now before the 18 Court. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 A defendant may remove to federal court any civil action over which “the district courts of 21 the United States have original jurisdiction.”

(a). “Only state-court actions that 22 originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the 23 defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

(1987). “Absent diversity of 24 citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required.”

25 Federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 26 laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. “The presence or absence of federal- 27 question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 1 pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar,

. “[A] case may not be removed to federal court 2 on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is 3 anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is 4 the only question truly at issue.”

. 5 There are two exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule. See City of Oakland v. BP 6 PLC,

(9th Cir. 2020). First, “the Supreme Court has recognized a special 7 and small category of state-law claims that arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 because 8 federal law is a necessary element of the . . . claim for relief.” Id. at 904 (quotation marks and 9 citation omitted). “A second exception to the well-pleaded-complaint rule is referred to as the 10 ‘artful-pleading doctrine.’” Id. at 905. “This doctrine allows removal where federal law 11 completely preempts a plaintiff’s state-law claim.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 While not stated explicitly in the Notice of Removal, it appears that Genho removed the 14 unlawful detainer action based on federal question jurisdiction, as she asserts that the unlawful 15 detainer proceedings violate the United States Constitution and federal statute. See Not. of 16 Removal, ECF 1. The Sasos’ complaint raises a single claim of unlawful detainer under 17 California state law. See Compl., Exh. to Pet. for Removal, ECF 2-1. Under the well-pleaded 18 complaint rule set forth above, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 19 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar,

. 20 Genho has not asserted that this case falls within one of the narrow exceptions to the well-pleaded 21 complaint rule, and the Court finds that it does not. Thus, because no federal question is presented 22 on the face of the Sasos’ unlawful detainer complaint, federal jurisdiction does not exist. 23 Genho argues that she is “protected by the CARES Act as well as the CDC Eviction 24 Moratorium until June 30, 2021.” Opp. at 1, ECF 16. “On March 27, 2020, the federal 25 government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (‘CARES Act’).” 26 Elmsford Apartment Assocs., LLC v. Cuomo,

, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “The 27 CARES Act provided numerous forms of relief . . . including a prohibition against new eviction 1 basis of non-payment of rent.”

On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and 2 Prevention (“CDC”) issued a temporary eviction moratorium entitled “Temporary Halt in 3 Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19.”

(Sept. 4, 4 2020). That moratorium was effective September 4, 2020 through December 31, 2020. See

5 To the extent Genho is raising the CARES Act and the CDC Eviction Moratorium as defenses to 6 the unlawful detainer action, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 7 defense.” Caterpillar,

. 8 The Court concludes that the action must be remanded to the Santa Cruz County Superior 9 Court for lack of federal jurisdiction. This conclusion is consistent with the decisions of numerous 10 other district courts within the Ninth Circuit that have remanded unlawful detainer actions for lack 11 of federal jurisdiction despite the defendant’s assertion of rights under the CARES Act or the CDC 12 Eviction Moratorium. See, e.g., Nahouraii v. Weinerman, No. 2:21-cv-00090-TLN-JDP, 2021

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021); Love v. White, No. 2:21-CV-00045-TLN-AC, 2021

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021); Menhardt v. Tracy, No. 20-CV-08670-NC,

8513086, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020). 16 The Sasos ask that Genho be required to pay their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 17 bringing the motion to remand. The Court has discretion to award fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1447, which provides in relevant part that “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment 19 of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 20

(c). Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,

(2005). “Conversely, 21 when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.”

In deciding whether to 22 award fees and costs against a pro se defendant under these standards, courts in this district 23 “recognize the lack of legal assistance to be significant,” and frequently decline to award fees and 24 costs against pro se litigants under § 1447(c). See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Bradford, 25 No. C 12-01077-RS,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2012). Given Genho’s pro se 26 status and personal circumstances as described in her opposition, the Court declines award 27 attorneys’ fees and costs against her. 1 IV. ORDER 2 (1) The motion to remand is GRANTED; 3 (2) The motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED; 4 (3) The Clerk SHALL transmit the file to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court and 5 close the file in this Court; and 6 (4) This order terminates ECF 8. 7 8 || Dated: April 19, 2021 icin) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

13

15 16

it

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