The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge
** E-filed April 19, 2012 **
ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 1]
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
On April 10, 2012, defendant Rita Calara removed this unlawful detainer action from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 ("Notice of Removal"). For the reasons stated below, the 21 undersigned ORDERS that this case be reassigned to a district judge, and RECOMMENDS sua 22 sponte that this action be summarily remanded to state court. 23
Plaintiffs In Touch Realty Investment, Inc. and Pacific Blue Ocean Investment LLC (collectively "plaintiffs") filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Rita Calara on March 26 20, 2012 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, p. 16 ("Complaint"). According 27 to the complaint, plaintiffs acquired the subject property, a San Jose residence, through a foreclosure 28 trustee's sale on February 8, 2012, in accordance with California Civil Code section 2924.
Complain, Exh. 1, p. 2. On March 14, plaintiffs served defendant with a three-day Notice to Quit. 2 Complaint ¶ 5. Defendant did not respond to the Notice, nor did she vacate the property. Id. at ¶ 7. 3 4 matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal jurisdiction can be based on 5 diversity of citizenship or on the existence of a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 6 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Ordinarily, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 7 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Id. Thus, "the plaintiff [is] the 8 master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." Id. 9
Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have had original subject If, after a court's prompt review of a notice of removal, "it clearly appears on the face of the notice 10 and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shallmake an order for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). These removal statutes are strictly construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal was 13 proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 15
16 of Removal ¶ 5. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under the 17
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim "arises under" 18 federal law if, based on the "well-pleaded complaint rule," the plaintiff alleges a federal cause of 19 action. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Alternatively, the complaint may 20 establish that the plaintiff's right to relief "necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 21 question of federal law." Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage 22
Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27--28 (1983). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal 24 question do not satisfy this requirement. ...