US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen
- James Donato
- 3:25-cv-04123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen, Judge Donato remanded the unlawful-detainer case to state court after finding no federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
U.S. National Bank Association and the pro se defendants, Susanna Van-Greunen and Ronald White. The case was remanded from federal court to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
What happened
US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen is a state-law unlawful-detainer case that defendants Susanna Van-Greunen and Ronald White removed to federal court. The magistrate judge allowed the defendants to proceed without paying filing fees, reviewed the case, and recommended sending it back to state court because the federal court lacked authority to hear it.
The court found that the complaint raised only a California state-law claim. The defendants’ argument that a federal tenant-protection law applied did not create federal jurisdiction. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because the required amount was not shown and the removal papers suggested that the defendants could be California residents. Neither defendant objected to the recommendation.
Judge James Donato adopted the recommendation in main part and remanded the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
The detailed version
- US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen · No. 3:25-cv-04123
- James Donato
- June 2, 2025
Background
U.S. National Bank Association brought an unlawful-detainer action concerning possession of property in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Susanna Van-Greunen and Ronald White, who were proceeding without lawyers, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. She allowed the defendants to proceed without paying filing fees, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and recommended remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither defendant filed objections, and the objection deadline passed.
Jurisdiction
The court independently examined whether it had authority to hear the removed case. It concluded that the complaint alleged only an unlawful-detainer claim under California law, so it did not create federal-question jurisdiction. A federal defense to a state-law claim generally does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
The defendants argued that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act preempted California law and made the case a federal claim. The court rejected that argument, finding that the defendants had not shown that the complete-preemption doctrine applied. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had held that the Act provides no private cause of action for U.S. Bank to assert.
The court also concluded that it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction. The complaint did not state a specific damages amount, and the defendants did not prove that the amount associated with the possession dispute exceeded $75,000. In addition, federal law generally bars removal when a defendant served in the case is a citizen of the state where the case was brought. Nothing in the removal papers suggested that the defendants did not live in California or could not be considered California residents.
Disposition
Judge Donato adopted the Report and Recommendation in main part and remanded the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court. The order did not state that the underlying unlawful-detainer claim was decided on its merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.