U.S. Bank National Association v. Romero
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-00404
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In U.S. Bank National Association v. Romero, Judge Donato remanded the unlawful-detainer case to state court because federal jurisdiction was not established.
U.S. Bank National Association and Janeth M. Romero; the case was returned to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.
What happened
U.S. Bank National Association v. Romero began as an unlawful-detainer case in state court. Janeth M. Romero, representing herself, moved the case to federal court.
Romero argued that the case raised a federal question because a statute affecting her ability to bring property-related cross-claims might be unconstitutional. The court explained that federal jurisdiction generally depends on a federal question appearing in the plaintiff’s complaint, not one raised only in response to it. The report and recommendation also concluded that federal-question and diversity jurisdiction had not been established.
Judge Donato overruled Romero’s objection, adopted Magistrate Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation, and ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court of California for Alameda County.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank National Association v. Romero · No. 3:20-cv-00404
- James Donato
- May 11, 2020
Background
U.S. Bank National Association filed an unlawful-detainer action against Janeth M. Romero in state court. Romero, who was representing herself, removed the case to federal court. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued a report and recommendation concluding that Romero had not established federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and recommending that the case be remanded to state court.
Romero’s Objection
Romero objected that the case presented a federal question concerning whether a statute that prevented her from bringing cross-claims to protect her property interest was constitutional.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the well-pleaded-complaint rule. Under that rule, a federal question generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint when the case is removed. A federal issue raised only in response to the complaint does not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court also relied on the principle that a federal right or immunity must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action for federal-question removal jurisdiction to exist.
Disposition
The court overruled Romero’s objection and adopted Magistrate Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation. It ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. The order addressed jurisdiction and the proper forum; it did not decide the underlying unlawful-detainer dispute.
Judge
The order was issued by James Donato, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.