Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Raquel G De Izarraras et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Wednesday, April 17, 2013 showing cause why this action should not be remandedfor lack of jurisdiction. Defendants should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers. (lc). Modified on 4/5/2013 .(lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS
FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, M.A.,
f/k/a NORWEST BANK
MINNESOTA, N.A., SOLELY AS
TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET
MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC.
BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE
FUNDING TRUST 2007-AR2,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007AR2,

17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20

RAQUEL G. DE IZARRARAS,
MANUEL IZRARRAS; JOSE
IZARRARAZ,

21
Defendants.
22
23
___________________________

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

Case No. CV 13-01783 DDP (SHx)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

24
25

Defendants are ordered to show cause why this action should

26

not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter

27

jurisdiction.

28

December 20, 2012.

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint on
On March 13, 2013, Defendant removed to this

1

court, apparently on the basis of both federal question and

2

diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 4,6.)

3

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a defendant may remove to federal

4

court “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have

5

original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the

6

Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States . . . .”

7

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a

8

suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement

9

of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal

10

law.”

11

quotation marks and citation omitted).

12

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . .

13

federal question jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated

14

counterclaim.”

15

of Plaintiff’s complaint suggests a federal question.

16

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal

Id.

“Federal law cannot be

(citations omitted)

Nor can

Here, nothing on the face

Alternatively, a federal court may exercise diversity

17

jurisdiction when there is complete diversity between the parties

18

and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

19

It appears from Plaintiff’s complaint, however, that an amount well

20

under $75,000, and indeed well under $10,000, is at issue.

21

(Complaint at 1, 3.)

22

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The court notes that Defendants have the burden of

23

establishing removal jurisdiction.

24

Defendants to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Wednesday,

25

April 17, 2013 showing cause why this action should not be remanded

26

for lack of jurisdiction.

27

courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring

Accordingly, the court orders

Defendants should also deliver a

28
2

1

Street, Los Angeles.

The court will regard any failure to file an

2

explanatory brief as consent to remand this matter to state court.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: April 5, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3