Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rubin Knight et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 4 . The action is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 12C01581. Pla intiff's request for attorney's fees is denied. Defendant is admonished that any attempt to remove this action again may result in an award of attorney's fees against defendant as well as other monetary and/or terminating sanctions. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 13-3218-CAS (PJWx)

Title

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rubin Knight, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 11, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INTRODUCTION

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of June 17, 2013, is hereby
vacated, and the matter is taken under submission.
On June 4, 2012, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture
Trustee for New Century Alternative Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-ALT1, filed the instant
unlawful detainer action against pro se defendants Patricia and Ruben Knight in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. LASC Case No. 12C01581. Defendants proceeded to
remove this action four separate times, all of which resulted in a remand to state court.
See Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rubin Knight, et al., Case Nos. 12-cv8818, Dkt. No. 8; 13-cv-0217, Dkt. No. 10; 13-cv-1713, Dkt. No. 5; 13-cv-2470, Dkt.
No. 6.
On May 6, 2013, defendant Patricia Knight again removed to this Court. Plaintiff
filed a motion to remand on May 9, 2013. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff also seeks an order
barring future removals in this action and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of
responding to all of defendant’s removals. To date, defendant has not filed any
opposition.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 13-3218-CAS (PJWx)

Title

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rubin Knight, et al.

II.

Date

JS-6

June 11, 2013

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the notice of removal was untimely.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), a notice of removal in a civil action must be filed within
thirty days after the defendant receives a copy of the complaint or summons. Here, the
action was initiated on May 6, 2012, yet defendant did not remove until May 6, 2013.
In addition, the law is clear that “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the
province of state court.” Federal Nat’l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
82300, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a
claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). A
defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or
defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143,
1145 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against
defendant. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction
by adding claims or asserting defenses, as defendant has done here. McAtee, 479 F.3d at
1145. In addition, there is no diversity jurisdiction, because plaintiffs’ claim for damages
is less than $10,000 and defendants are residents of the forum state. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332 and 1441(b). Thus, neither diversity of the parties’ nor a federal question can
provide a basis for this Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
claim.
Moreover, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is also improper. To remove this
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443, defendant must satisfy a two-part test. See Georgia v.
Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788–92, 794–804 (1966); City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock,
384 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966). First, defendant must demonstrate that as a defense to a
civil action or prosecution, she has asserted “rights that are given to them by explicit
statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights”; and second, “that the state court
upholds a statute or constitutional provision that orders the state court not to enforce
those federally protected civil rights.” California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th
Cir. 1970). Defendant’s argument that the California non-judicial foreclosure statutory
scheme qualifies as such is without merit. See, e.g., Union Bank v. Lebow, 2012 U.S.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

CV 13-3218-CAS (PJWx)

June 11, 2013

Title

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rubin Knight, et al.

Dist. LEXIS 60152, *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012). Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1443
does not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon this Court over the instant case.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the action is hereby REMANDED to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
Defendant is admonished that any attempt to remove this action again may result in an
award of attorney’s fees against defendant as well as other monetary and/or terminating
sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3