ORDER DIRECTING REASSIGNMENT; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

Re: ECF No. 1

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff Pacific Urban Residential LLC, the owner of a residential property, filed an unlawful-detainer case against two tenants, defendants Karen Smith and Verna Gilbert, in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.1 The defendants removed the action from state court on January 2, 2018, asserting federal-question jurisdiction.2 The defendants have not identified any federal question, however, and no basis for federal-court jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint. Remand to state court therefore is appropriate. Pacific Urban declined consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction,3 and hence this case must be reassigned. The undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge and recommends that the newly assigned judge remand the case back to the California state court.

ANALYSIS

Subject to certain requirements and limitations, a defendant generally may remove a case from state court to federal court where the case presents either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(c). The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for the federal court's jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990).

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction. While the defendants' Notice of Removal does not identify the parties' citizenship, the addresses that appear on the parties' filings show that Ms. Smith and Ms. Gilbert reside in California and that Pacific Urban apparently resides in California.4 The Notice of Removal does not indicate the amount in controversy, but the complaint alleges less than $10,000 in damages,5 well under the $75,000 requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction therefore does not exist.

2. Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The defendants claim that this case presents federal-question jurisdiction.6 They argue in their Notice of Removal that "[t]he complaint presents federal questions" and "[f]ederal question exists because Defendant's Answer, a pleading[,] depend on the determination of Defendant's rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law."7 The complaint does not present any federal questions, only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim. Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez, No. 3:11-cv-00451-WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. 4:11-cv-01894-PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). As for the defendants' argument that their answer will present federal questions, the "well-pleaded complaint" rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the plaintiff's complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. A federal question raised only in an answer is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the defendants have not identified any federal question in the complaint in their Notice of Removal, the case must be remanded to state court.

CONCLUSION

The undersigned directs the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge. The undersigned recommends that the newly assigned district judge remand this action to the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.").

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); N.D. Cal. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file written objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.