The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association v. Mary Angulo et al

Filing 8

MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order Remanding action; Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 3 : Based on the foregoing, we conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We hereby REMAND this action to the state court from which it was rem oved. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (cc Copy of Minute Order, Docket Sheet and Letter of Remand sent to West Covina Superior Court, Case number UDVS 12U01406) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ir) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2013: # 1 Letter of Remand - CV 103) (ir).

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-1453-GHK (CWx)

Title

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company v. Mary Esther Angulo, et al.

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

March 29, 2013

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 Remanding action; Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No.
3)

On March 7, 2013, we required Defendants to show cause why this action should not be
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given that this appears to be an improperly removed
unlawful detainer action. On March 18, 2013, Defendants timely responded to our OSC. Defendants’
response appears to reattach their Notice of Removal and reasserts that Defendants “rebut[] the
presumption that this is a non-judicial foreclosure issue” and that Plaintiff has engaged in, inter alia,
fraud and violated their due process rigths. (Response 1-3). As we explained in our March 7, 2013
OSC, however, even if these arguments raise a federal question, federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an
actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim under the well-pleaded complaint rule. California ex rel.
Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60
(2009).
Based on the foregoing, we 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 is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

IR for Bea

Page 1 of 1