United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the court is plaintiff's motion to remand. (ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff's motion came on regularly for hearing on June
26, 2019. Michael Mapes appeared for plaintiff. Defendant
appeared and represented himself pro se. Upon review of the
documents in support and opposition, the parties'
arguments, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS
AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Background
Plaintiff
is the court appointed trustee of the Wesley D. Davis
Irrevocable Trust. According to plaintiff, he received this
appointment after defendant was removed from office for
breach of fiduciary duties. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Following his
appointment, plaintiff was “tasked with distribution of
the estate, ” which required him to “clear liens
recorded on the property filed by Defendant and regain
possession of real property which was being occupied by
Defendant.” (Id.) As a result, two legal
actions ensued: a petition to expunge a lien and an unlawful
detainer complaint. (Id.; see also ECF No.
1 at 10 (petition for order striking and releasing property
based on California Civil Code § 8480); ECF No. 1 at 137
(unlawful detainer complaint).) Plaintiff is not seeking
damages, only possession of real property located in Nevada
County, California. (ECF No. 5 at 3.)
On
April 9, 2019, defendant removed plaintiff's petition to
expunge and unlawful detainer complaint from Nevada County
Superior Court to this court. (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2019,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) based on a defect in removal procedure for one of the
complaints and lack of jurisdiction for both complaints. (ECF
No. 5.) Defendant filed an opposition on May 29, 2019 (ECF
No. 7), and plaintiff filed a reply on June 18, 2019 (ECF No.
8).
II.
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
Plaintiff
sets forth several arguments in favor of remand. Plaintiff
argues that defendant's removal was improper because no
federal question is alleged in either underlying matter. (ECF
No. 5 at 4.) Plaintiff further argues that defendant failed
to timely remove the lien petition within the requisite 30
days, which was served on February 19, 2019; and defendant
availed himself to the lien petition proceedings by appearing
and contesting the petition. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff
requests reimbursement of fees and costs in the amount of $4,
410. (Id.; see also ECF No. 8 at 3, ECF No.
8-1.)
III.
Defendant's Opposition to the Motion to Remand
Defendant
makes a number of arguments in support of federal subject
matter jurisdiction. First, defendant argues that Nevada
County lacks “territorial jurisdiction” over the
removed complaints. (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Second, defendant
argues that plaintiff “does not dispute the evidence of
the certified copy of the grant deed metes and bounds of the
physical location upon which the [Nevada County Court] is
currently seated.” (Id. at 2-3.) Although not
entirely clear, it appears to the court that defendant's
position is that Nevada County has “federal character
and status” and therefore federal venue must be
“deemed admitted” by plaintiff because the court
“conducts its business under the thrust of” a
federal employer tax identification number. (Id.)
Third, defendant argues that the Foreign Sovereignty
Immunities Act has been invoked, which provides a remedy
prohibiting any state court from adjudicating any claim
against a sovereign entity that has invoked the Act.
(Id. at 7.) In that regard, defendant claims he has
“asserted [his] inherent right as a free born Caucasian
descendant of the posterity of the creators of that noble
piece of paper that binds the nation states together . . .
.” (Id.) Finally, defendant argues that the
Nevada County Superior Court and plaintiff's counsel have
federal employee tax identification numbers, which confers
subject matter jurisdiction over the complaints at issue.
(Id. at 10.)
IV.
Legal Standard
In
relevant part, the federal removal statute 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “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 statute 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
...