1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KCM BRENTWOOD, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-00937-AMO g Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 Vv. REMAND 10 SCOTT TINSLEY, Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendant.

13 Before the Court is KCM Brentwood’s motion to remand this unlawful detainer action to 14 || Contra Costa Superior Court. Tinsley has filed an opposition to the motion, which is suitable for 3 15 disposition without hearing pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ papers, A 16 || the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion. 3 17 || I. BACKGROUND 18 KCM Brentwood commenced this unlawful detainer case in Contra Costa Superior Court 19 on December 5, 2022. ECF 10-1. Tinsley, pro se, removed the action to this Court on March 2, 20 || 2023, claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction because of alleged violations of the Americans 21 with Disabilities Act,

- 12189, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 22 || U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692p. ECF 1 at 4. KCM Brentwood moves to remand the action to state court. 23 ECF 10. Tinsley opposes the motion. ECF 12. 24 || IL. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A defendant in state court may remove an action to federal court if the case could have 26 || been filed originally in federal court.

(a). Original jurisdiction may be based on 27 || federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

, 28 392 (1987);

, 1332. A district court must remand a removed action “[i]f at any

1 time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28

(c). Courts must “strictly construe the removal statute against removal 3 || jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). “The strong presumption 4 || against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always had the burden of establishing that 5 || removal is proper.” /d. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 6 || I. DISCUSSION 7 Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and thus, the court lacks federal 8 question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. 3:11-cv-00451-WHA, 9 |}

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LEC v. Rosario, No. 4:11-cv- 10 01894-PJH,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 11 No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). 12 Tinsley seeks to avoid remand by arguing that KCM Brentwood has violated the E 13 Americans with Disabilities Act,

- 12189, and the Federal Debt Collection 14 || Practices Act,

- 1692p. ECF 12. However, the well-pleaded complaint rule 3 15 requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the plaintiff's complaint at the time of A 16 removal for federal question jurisdiction to exist. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,

, 63 3 17 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle,

(9th Cir. 1996). An anticipated federal defense or 18 counterclaim does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Wescom Credit Union,

4916578, at *2 (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,

, 20 10 (1983)). 21 Here, the sole claim in KCM Brentwood’s state court complaint is for unlawful detainer. 22 ECF 10-1. It presents no federal question, and as such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate 23 it. Accordingly, remand is required. 24 // 25 |} // 26 // 27 // 28 //

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants KCM Brentwood’s motion to remand. 3. || KCM Brentwood shall serve a copy of this order on Tinsley and file a certificate of service by no 4 || later than August 25, 2023. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 21, 2023 7 □ □ g : ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

«44 © 15 16

Z 418 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28