Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Elmer Alvaro et al

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [Dkt. 4] by Judge Dean D. Pregerson granting 4 Motion to Remand Case to State Court: For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Case Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 12U09923. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 - Letter of Transmittal - Remand to Superior Court) (bm)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE OF THE
HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE LOAN
ASSET-BACKED TRUST SERIES IN
ABS 2007-B, HOME EQUITY
MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES IN ABS
2007-B UNDER THE POOLING AND
SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED
JUNE 1, 2007,

16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
19

ELMER ALVARO, DANIEL PEREZ,
PAOLA VALVERDE, MARIO RIVA,
GRISELDA NAVA,

20
Defendants.
21
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08028 DDP (Ex)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND
[Dkt. 4]

22
23

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

24

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court grants

25

the motion and adopts the following order.

26

On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful

27

detainer against Defendants in the Superior Court of California.

28

The Complaint seeks possession of property located at 2118 Crenshaw

1

Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, and damages of $83.00 per day.

2

Defendants removed to this court on September 18, 2012.

3

now seeks to remand the matter to state court.

Plaintiff

4

A defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action

5

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

6

States have original jurisdiction . . . .”

7

District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions

8

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

9

States.

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

The removal statute is strictly

10

construed against removal jurisdiction, and federal jurisdiction

11

must be rejected if any doubt exists as to the propriety of

12

removal.

13

A removing defendant always bears the burden of establishing that

14

removal is proper.

15

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

Id.

No federal question appears from the face of the complaint.

16

Nevertheless, Defendants assert that this case implicates a federal

17

question because they have a defense under the United States

18

Constitution.

19

complaint rule, however, a suit ‘arises under’ federal law only

20

when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows

21

that it is based upon federal law.”

22

U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quotation, citation, and alteration omitted).

23

“Federal law” cannot be predicated on a defense or counterclaim.

24

Id.

25

(Opp. at 3.)

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

This court also has original diversity jurisdiction over

26

actions between different states where the amount in controversy

27

exceeds $75,000.

28

parties are not diverse as both are residents of California.

28 U.S.C. 1332(a).

2

Plaintiff asserts that the
(Mot.

1

at 2.)

Defendants do not dispute this. In addition, the amount in

2

controversy requirement is not met here.

3

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges on its face an amount in controversy

4

less than $10,000.

5

to a “legal certainty” that the jurisdictional minimum is met.

6

Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 5056 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

7

2007).

8

detainer cases, however, only the right to possession is at issue,

9

not right to title.

First, the face of

Under such circumstances, Defendants must show

Defendants have not made such a showing.

In unlawful

See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas,

10

No. C 10-05478 PJH, 201l WL 204322 at *2 (N.D. Cal. January 21,

11

2011).

12

the complaint, not the value of the property.

13

Chishty, No. CV 12–02252 MMM, 2012 WL 1952834 at *2 (C.D. Cal. May

14

31, 2012).

15

$75,000, diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and removal is,

16

therefore, improper.

17
18

The measure of damages, therefore, is the amount sought in
Bank of America v.

Because the amount in controversy here does not exceed

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is
GRANTED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: October 15, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3