Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sidney Huddleston et al

Filing 8

MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order re: (1) Order to Show Cause 6 ; (2) Plaintiff'sMotion to Remand 4 ; (3) Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an OrderShortening Time on Its Motion to Remand 5 : Based on the foregoing, we find and conclude th at we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We hereby REMAND this action to the state court from which it was removed. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Ex Parte Application are DENIED as mootIT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King (cc Copy of Minute Order, Docket Sheet and Letter of Remand to Inglewood Superior Court, Case number 12L00531) (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (ir) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2012: # 1 Letter of Remand - CV 103) (ir).

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 12-7851-GHK (SHx) Title Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sidney Huddleston Presiding: The Honorable Date October 17, 2012 GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Beatrice Herrera N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: (1) Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 6); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4); (3) Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time on Its Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 5) On September 12, 2012, Defendant Sidney Huddleston (“Defendant”) removed the above-titled unlawful detainer action to this Court. The Notice of Removal (“NOR”) states that we have federal question jurisdiction based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Noting that the complaint pleads only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer and that the “well-pleaded complaint rule” requires the federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, we required Defendant to show cause why this matter should not be remanded because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. On October 15, 2012, Defendant timely responded to our OSC. In his response, he reasserts that we have subject matter jurisdiction under the FDCPA. We have already stated that such assertion is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. Additionally, he appears to argue that we have subject matter jurisdiction because he asserts a defense of inadequate notice under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”). However, federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. See US Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Jenkins, 2012 WL 242858, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (“Defendant’s reference to the PTFA is best characterized as a defense or potential counterclaim, neither of which is considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint.” (internal quotations omitted)). Based on the foregoing, we find and conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We hereby REMAND this action to the state court from which it was removed. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Ex Parte Application are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. --Initials of Deputy Clerk CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL : --- ljw for Bea Page 1 of 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?