holding that “a case may not be 1 can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “a case may not be 1 can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 25-cv-10449-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE
10 v.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
11 DEBBIE ALICE THOMPSON, et al., RE REMAND TO STATE COURT
Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 1
12
13
14 On December 5, 2025, defendant Debbie Alice Thompson removed this unlawful detainer
15 action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. As reflected in Ms. Thompson’s
16 filing, plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) initiated this action in Santa Clara
17 County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV463515, against defendants Debbie Alice Thompson,
18 Albert Gordon Brown, Tiffany A. Thompson, Shengyu Wang, and several placeholder Doe
19 defendants (collectively, “defendants”), alleging that defendants failed to vacate a property in
20 Monte Sereno, California following a foreclosure sale on the property on January 19, 2022. Id. at
21 ECF 5-7. Several actions involving the same Monte Sereno property and Ms. Thompson have
22 been filed in or removed to this District. See Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
23 No. 15-cv-04885-BLF; Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-06134-BLF;
24 Thompson v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of
25 America, et al., No. 20-cv-02107-EJD; In re Debbie Alice Thompson, No. 21-cv-05021-YGR;
26 Thompson v. B&B Capital, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-05262-BLF; Thompson v. The State of
27 California, et al., No. 22-cv-04308-NC. For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that
1 I. LEGAL STANDARD
2 Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject
3 matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly
4 construed against removal and place the burden on the removing party to demonstrate that removal
5 is proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
6 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the court has a continuing
7 duty to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be
8 remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks
9 subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
10 II. DISCUSSION
11 Ms. Thompson invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
12 Dkt. No. 1 at ECF 2-3. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under
13 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under”
14 federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for
15 relief. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a
16 federal question do not satisfy this requirement. Id.
17 Ms. Thompson fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. U.S. Bank’s
18 complaint presents a single state law claim for unlawful detainer and does not allege any federal
19 claims whatsoever. See Dkt. No. 1 at ECF 5-8; see also Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Young,
20 No. 14-cv-3170 EMC, 2014 WL 7336696, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (“It is well established
21 that unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks
22 federal-question jurisdiction.”).
23 Ms. Thompson contends that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action
24 because she asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
25 § 3604(b), in her opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the state court. Dkt.
26 No. 1 at ECF 2. However, federal defenses and counterclaims do not provide a basis for removal.
27 See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (holding that “a case may not be
1 can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”). Accordingly, whatever
2 || claims Ms. Thompson may have under section 1983 or the Fair Housing Act do not establish
3 || federal question jurisdiction in this unlawful detainer action.' See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. □□
4 Hoffman, No. 13-cv-0116 SI, 2013 WL 1760339, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) (remanding
5 unlawful detainer action because defendants’ claim of a section 1983 violation did not raise a
6 federal question); Lin Lin v. Jamison, No. 18-cv-07216-KAW, 2018 WL 6978112, at *2 (N.D.
7 Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) (recommending remand where defendant raised a Fair Housing Act defense in
8 an unlawful detainer action).
9 Ms. Thompson does not assert any other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, such
10 || as diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and no such basis is apparent. Therefore, the
11 Court recommends remand of this case to state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
12 || I. CONCLUSION
13 Based on the foregoing, the removal of this case was improper. Because not all parties
14 || have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Clerk of Court shall reassign this case to a
3 15 district judge. The Court recommends that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Santa
a 16 || Clara County Superior Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 || Dated: December 8, 2025
19
20 Vrain □□□□□□□
Virginia K. DeMarchi
21 United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
7 ' The Court notes that is not clear from Ms. Thompson’s filing in this case whether U.S. Bank ever
filed a motion for summary judgment in the state court. A minute order, dated October 21, 2025,
2g || notes that the court “could not locate a notice or motion for summary judgment in the file.” Dkt.
No. 1 at ECF 946.