Aurora Loan Services LLC v. William J Kay et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles. Made JS-6 (bp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. 2:12-cv-01186-JHN-FMOx
Date: April 26, 2012
Title:
Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. William J. Kay, et al.
Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter/Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (In Chambers)
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion
to Remand Case (“Motion”) filed on March 15, 2012. (Docket no. 7.) Defendants
have not filed an opposition. The Court has read and considered the Motion and
deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 14, 2012 is
removed from the Court’s calendar. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS the case to Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
Under Local Rule 7-9, Defendants were required to file an opposition no later than
twenty-one (21) days before the date set for hearing. Failure to do so may be
deemed consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-12. As no
opposition has been filed, the Court deems Defendants’ failure to file a written
opposition as consent to the granting of the Motion. In addition, the Court has read
and considered Plaintiff’s Motion and determines that federal jurisdiction is
lacking.
Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which in relevant part
states that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, the Court may remand a case to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. 2:12-cv-01186-JHN-FMOx
Date: April 26, 2012
Title:
Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. William J. Kay, et al.
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking federal
jurisdiction. United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions
“arising under” federal law. “The presence or absence of federal-question
jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that
federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of
the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim
has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal
one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec.,
Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court
also has original jurisdiction over civil actions where there is complete diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Morris v. Princess
Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).
Defendants removed this matter to federal court on February 10, 2012. (Docket
no. 1.) However, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. The Complaint’s
sole cause of action is for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. No federal question
is presented on the face of the Complaint. Defendants predicate removal on
anticipated defenses based on the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Code of Federal Regulations,
and various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 10–14.)
However, a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal
defense, even if the defense is anticipated in the Plaintiff’s complaint. Franchise
Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). Further, it
appears that no diversity jurisdiction exists, as the demand is expressly limited to
less than $10,000. (Complaint 1, [Notice of Removal Ex. B].)
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. 2:12-cv-01186-JHN-FMOx
Date: April 26, 2012
Title:
Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. William J. Kay, et al.
___: N/A
Initials of Preparer

AM

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
3