1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OAK TREE PROPERTY GROUP, Case No. 25-cv-03528-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 9 v. SHORTENING TIME AND REMANDING CASE 10 SHAVON BUTLER, Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 6, 7 11 Defendant.

12 13 On March 4, 2025, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant, one of its 14 residential tenants, in Alameda County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Defendant removed the 15 case on April 22, 2025, asserting that the federal court has jurisdiction based on a violation of her 16 Sixth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On April 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand 17 alongside an ex parte application to consider its motion in shortened time. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. Defendant 18 submitted an opposition to the motion to remand the next day. Dkt. No. 8. 19 This case was originally assigned to Judge Westmore, but was reassigned to the undersigned 20 judge because of a related case, Case No. 3:25-cv-03344-SI, involving a separate unlawful detainer 21 action involving the same parties and the same tenancy. In that action, Judge Beeler recommended 22 remand and the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge to consider her report and 23 recommendation. Case No. 3:25-cv-03344-SI (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 9. 24 As defendant has submitted her opposition, the Court considers it appropriate to resolve 25 plaintiff’s remand motion at this time, before the originally noticed hearing date.1 Pursuant to Civil 26

27 1 The hearing date was originally noticed for June 5, 2025, but this hearing date was vacated 1 Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the motion is suitable for resolution without oral 2 argument. 3 The Court REMANDS the matter to the Alameda County Superior Court. Federal subject 4 || matter jurisdiction is lacking. A defendant “may not remove a case to federal court unless the 5 || plaintiff s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” See Franchise Tax Bd. of 6 State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California,

(1983) (emphasis 7 || in original). Here, the original complaint was for unlawful detainer, a state law cause of action that 8 does not implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Defendant attempts to 9 establish that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, but has not attempted to argue that 10 || the parties are citizens of different states as required for diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 6. As such, 11 the amount in controversy is moot. 12 Defendant’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is dismissed as moot. See 13 Dkt. No. 2. No filing fee is due. 14

a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: May 6, 2025 Sate WU tee 18 SUSAN ILLSTON 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28