BACKGROUND

18 This is the second of two lawsuits between these parties and their affiliate businesses 19 arising from a lease agreement. Bascom owns a property (“the property”) located at 550 South 20 Bascom Avenue in San Jose, California, which includes a parking lot, driveways, and a small 21 commercial building. Mot. to Remand [Dkt. No. 13] ¶¶ 1, 3. Through its agent, Taylor 22 Properties, Bascom rented the property to Akbarzadeh via a month-to-month agreement. Id. ¶ 3. 23 Akbarzadeh operates a business known as Top Notch Auto Sales on the property. See id. ¶ 2. 24 On March 8, 2022, Bascom notified Akbarzadeh that it was terminating his tenancy on 25 April 7, 2022. Id. ¶ 4. After Akbarzadeh failed to turn over possession, Bascom filed an unlawful 26 detainer action against him in Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 8, 2022. Id. 27 Akbarzadeh removed the case to this district on April 20. Dkt. No. 1. A day later, the case 1 was related to another pending matter: JMA Enterprises LLC v. Taylor, No. 22-CV-01692-WHO 2 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2022). See Dkt. No. 4. In that suit, Akbarzadeh and his business, JMA 3 Enterprises LLC, sued Bascom and another defendant, John Robert Taylor, for indemnity, breach 4 of contract, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging that under the terms 5 of the lease, the defendants, not the plaintiffs, were responsible for making ADA-required 6 improvements to the property. 1 See JMA Enters., No. 22-CV-01692-WHO, Dkt. No. 1. 7 Bascom moved to remand this case on May 13, 2022. Dkt. No. 13. Pursuant to Civil 8 Local Rule 7-1(b), this motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. 9 LEGAL STANDARD 10 A defendant sued in state court may remove the action to federal court if the action could 11 have been brought in federal court in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Subject matter 12 jurisdiction—in the form of federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction—must exist for a 13 matter to be brought in federal court. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 14 Federal question jurisdiction exists if an action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 15 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction exists when: (1) the parties are 16 citizens of different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. § 1332. 17 Whether jurisdiction exists “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’” focusing 18 on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. “The 19 rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by 20 exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. 21 DISCUSSION 22 I. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 23 There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction. The complaint does not allege that the parties 24 are citizens of different states, nor does Akbarzadeh argue that they are. See Notice of Removal 25 [Dkt. No. 1] Ex. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 1-8; see also Oppo. [Dkt. No. 15] 1-5. Rather, the civil cover 26 sheet to the removal notice affirms that both Bascom and Akbarzadeh reside in Santa Clara 27 1 County and are citizens of California. See Dkt. No. 1. 2 II. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION 3 Akbarzadeh argues that federal question jurisdiction exists because this case derives from a 4 common nucleus of operative facts—the “same lease, same premises, same precursor events, and 5 same parties”—as in the earlier-filed case, JMA Enterprises. See Oppo. at 3:21-24. Because JMA 6 Enterprises arises under the ADA, Akbarzadeh contends, jurisdiction exists here as well. See id. 7 at 4:5-20. 8 Akbarzadeh’s argument misses the mark. The underlying complaint brings a single cause 9 of action: unlawful detainer. See Compl. This is a purely state law claim. Snavely v. Johnson, 10 || No. C-15-03773-WHA, 2015 WL 5242925, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (‘An unlawful 11 detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California 12 || law.”). There is no federal question presented on the face of the complaint. 5 13 Nor can Akbarzadeh rely on the purported federal question in JMA Enterprises, as there is 14 no such question. That case involves claims for indemnity, breach of contract, and UCL 3 15 violations, arising from a dispute over which party was responsible for making ADA-required 16 || improvements to the property. For reasons I explain in my Order dismissing that case, the ADA 3 17 does not provide a cause of action—the claims are based on the lease agreement, not the ADA 18 itself. See also Brown v. HTR Props. LLC, No. 17-CV-00829-WHO, 2017 WL 3453354, at *2 19 || (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017) (‘indemnification claims must be based on the lease agreement, not on 20 || the ADA”). The related case provides no basis for jurisdiction. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Bascom’s motion to remand is GRANTED. I ORDER that the case be REMANDED to 23 the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 28, 2022 26 .

28 Ifam H. Orrick | United States District Judge