Filed: Oct. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Re: ECF 15, 20] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On October 17, 2016, Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt: Wilson filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remanding this forcible entry and forcible detainer action. See ECF 15, 20. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Lloyd's R&R and the argume
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Re: ECF 15, 20] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On October 17, 2016, Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt: Wilson filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remanding this forcible entry and forcible detainer action. See ECF 15, 20. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Lloyd's R&R and the argumen..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
[Re: ECF 15, 20]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
On October 17, 2016, Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt: Wilson filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remanding this forcible entry and forcible detainer action. See ECF 15, 20. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Lloyd's R&R and the arguments in Wilson's objection. Finding the R&R correct, well reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in every respect.
Defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Lloyd's R&R, Wilson raises several objections based on affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may allege under federal law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claims pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and a claim that Plaintiffs violated the automatic stay in federal bankruptcy cases. ECF 20, at 6, 25-26. However, "[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Wilson also claims that the action involves a federal question because the action arises out of a federal land patent. ECF 20, at 12. "Federal land patents . . . [however,] do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction." Virgin v. Cty. Of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569-70 (1912)). Wilson further claims that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the "property has a value . . . well over $1,000,000.00." ECF 20, at 24. However, as Judge Lloyd stated, "forcible entry and forcible detainer actions do not involve the right to title to the property. So, the fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant." ECF 15, at 2 (citations omitted). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, the above-titled forcible entry and forcible detainer action is REMANDED to the San Benito County Superior Court.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
