The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants, proceeding in propria persona, removed this case from the Siskiyou County Superior Court. This action was referred to the undersigned for all proceedings pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules 302-304.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." See also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, it is clear that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
This case was originally filed as an Complaint for Money - Common Counts in the Superior Court of California, County of Siskiyou, on February 2, 2012. The action is based on California state law. The complaint specifically states the amount demanded is $6,225.99.
Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendants became indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $6,225.99 for good and/or services rendered, defendants agreed to pay said amount to plaintiff, and no part of the sum has been paid. (Compl. for Money - Common Counts (Complaint), attached to Notice of Removal (Doc. 1)).
On July 9, 2012, defendants filed the notice of removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, indicating that this court has jurisdiction over this action as it raises a federal question. Defendants indicate they will be filing a separate action in this court against the plaintiff, for which they will be requesting to consolidate the two actions.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a specific action, the case must either arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States or involve citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332. "[I]t is well established that the plaintiff is 'master of her complaint' and can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction." Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). "The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). "The removal status is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction," id., and removal jurisdiction "'must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.'" Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)).
In relevant part, the federal removal statue provides:
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending . . . .
(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b).
To the extent defendants base the removal of this action on this court's federal question jurisdiction, such jurisdiction does not exist. District courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. "A case 'arises under' federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 'where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.'" Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (modification in original) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). "[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1091. "[A] counterclaim - which appears as part of the defendant's answer, not as part of the plaintiff's complaint - cannot serve as the basis for 'arising under' jurisdiction." Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002).
Here, the complaint filed in State court is only premised on California law. No federal question is present, and thus no basis for federal question jurisdiction, appears on the face of the complaint. While defendants contend in their notice of removal that plaintiffs have somehow violated some federal law, and a separate action is planned, this is not a sufficient basis to remove a state court action. The basis for federal question jurisdiction must be presented on the face of a plaintiff's complaint. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009) (stating that federal question jurisdiction cannot "rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim"). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not provide a proper basis for removal.
The next possible basis for this court's jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs," and the action is between "(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as ...