U.S. Bank Association v. Lior Alkoby et al

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOSANGELES SUPERIOR COURT (filed May 22, 2015, Docket #9) 9 by Judge Christina A. Snyder: In accordance with the foregoing, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Cour t. Defendants are admonished to comply with applicable law governing removal to federal court. Additional unwarranted removals in this case may result in monetary sanctions. Remanded to Superior Court of CA for the County of Los Angeles in Santa Monica, 14R 06205. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (pj)

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

2:15-cv-03007-CAS (JEMx)

Title

‘O’

U.S. BANK, N.A. v. LIOR ALKOBY, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

JS-6

June 8, 2015

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:

(In Chambers:) MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT (filed May 22, 2015, Docket
#9)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On June 23, 2014, plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A. filed an unlawful detainer action in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against pro se defendants Lior Alkoby,
Juan Fernando, Matilde Melendez, Tomas Garcia, Maria Garcia, Sergio Cruz, Martin
Gonzalez, and Maria Cruz. Notice of Removal Ex. A. Defendant Maria Cruz (“Cruz”)
subsequently filed a notice of removal on April 22, 2015, arguing that a federal question
exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220. Notice of
Removal ¶ 7. Cruz also asserts that diversity jurisdiction renders the instant case
properly before this Court. Notice of Removal ¶ 6.
On May 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which has not been opposed.
For the reasons explained below, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case, and plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted.
II.

DISCUSSION

Removal is proper where the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction
over an action filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts recognize a “strong
presumption” against removal jurisdiction and place the burden on the removing
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

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

2:15-cv-03007-CAS (JEMx)

Date

Title

‘O’

JS-6

June 8, 2015

U.S. BANK, N.A. v. LIOR ALKOBY, ET AL.

defendant to demonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “If at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). In general, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction where
a case presents a claim arising under federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”), or
where the plaintiffs and defendants are residents of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 (“diversity jurisdiction”). See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Trust Co. v. Galindo, No. CV 10-01893, 2011 WL 662324, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011)
(explaining the two types of jurisdiction).
A.

This Case Does Not Arise Under Federal Law.

In her notice of removal, Cruz contends that this court has jurisdiction because
federal law, specifically the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009 (“PTFA”),
governs plaintiff’s cause of action. Notice of Removal ¶ 7. Cruz is incorrect.
Whether a case arises under federal law is generally determined by the wellpleaded complaint rule. “[A] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the
United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”
Cal. Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538, 542 (9th
Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). In addition, “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within
the province of state court.” Federal Nat’l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, No. 1:11-cv-01225,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust
Co. v. Leonardo, No. CV 11-3979, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *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 anticipated defenses to a notice of removal must
fail. See Benefit Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003).
The only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer. See Notice of
Removal, Ex. A. Unlawful detainer actions, as stated above, are pure matters of state law
because they arise under Section 1161 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. See,
e.g., McGee v. Seagraves, No. 06-CV-0495, 2006 WL 2014142, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17,
2006). This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over an action where a
“right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States” does not
constitute an essential element of Plaintiff’s cause of action. See Cal. Shock Trauma, 636
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

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

2:15-cv-03007-CAS (JEMx)

Date

Title

‘O’

JS-6

June 8, 2015

U.S. BANK, N.A. v. LIOR ALKOBY, ET AL.

F.3d at 542; McGee, 2006 WL 2014142, at *2 (holding that a federal court lacks
jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions). Defendant cannot create federal subject
matter jurisdiction by attempting to raise a defense under the PTFA or any other federal
law. See Anderson, 539 U.S. at 6. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction based on a federal question. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300 at *6.
B.

Defendant Has Not Established Diversity Jurisdiction.

Removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be
completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam). The removing party bears the burden of showing that removal is
proper. Duncan v. Stuetzie, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996)
In order to establish complete diversity, Cruz must show that the action is between
“citizens of different States” or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a); Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485. Cruz’s notice of removal does not
allege the citizenship of any defendant, nor does it allege the plaintiff’s citizenship
beyond stating that U.S. Bank is not a California corporation. Notice of Removal ¶ 4.
Cruz is also unable to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The complaint seeks only the reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the premises,
calculated at $47.37 per day from June 12, 2014, and limits damages to $10,000. Compl.
¶ 10. “In unlawful detainer actions, ‘the right to possession alone [is] involved—not title
to the property.’ ” Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Assoc. v. Sue Lin Poh, No. C-12-02707, 2012
WL 3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) (citing Litton Loan Serv., L.P. v. Villegas,
No. C 10-05478, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011)); see Evans v.
Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977) (explaining that in a summary
proceeding for unlawful detainer, “the right to possession alone [is] involved, and the
broad question of title [cannot] be raised and litigated by cross-complaint or affirmative
defense” (quoting Cheney v. Trauzettel, 9 Cal. 2d 158, 159 (1937))). Therefore, “the
amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property,
determines the amount in controversy.” Villegas, 2011 WL 204322, at *2. Accordingly,
diversity jurisdiction does not exist because it’s unclear whether the parties are diverse,
and, in any event, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

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

2:15-cv-03007-CAS (JEMx)

Title

JS-6

U.S. BANK, N.A. v. LIOR ALKOBY, ET AL.
C.

Date

‘O’

June 8, 2015

This Case Has Previously Been Remanded on the Same Grounds

The Court notes that this is not the first time this case has been removed to federal
court. On March 19, 2015, Defendant Sergio Cruz filed a notice of removal on identical
grounds. On April 24, 2015, this Court entered an order remanding the case to the Los
Angeles Superior Court. See U.S. Bank v. Alkoby, et al., No. CV 15-2039-GHK
(MRWx), Dkt. No. 6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015).
An order remanding a case to state court is generally not reviewable “on appeal or
otherwise,” except in limited circumstances not present here. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). A
second removal on the same grounds as the first is tantamount to a request for review of
the first remand order, which is prohibited. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent.
Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that the language of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d) “has been universally construed to preclude not only appellate review but also
reconsideration by the district court. Once a district court certifies a remand order to state
court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.”). Put
differently, “a party is not entitled to file a second notice of removal upon the same
grounds where the district court previously remanded the action.” Allen v. UtiliQuest,
LLC., No. CV 13–4466, 2014 WL 94337, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (citing St. Paul &
Chi. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883) (“[W]e are of opinion that a party is
not entitled . . . to file a second petition for the removal upon the same grounds, where,
upon the first removal by the same party, the federal court declined to proceed and
remanded the suit.”)). Accordingly, Maria Cruz’s removal petition, which is identical in
all material respects to Sergio Cruz’s first removal petition, cannot “reinvest” this Court
with jurisdiction. Seedman, 837 F.2d at 414. This provides an additional reason to
remand the case, and defendants are admonished against attempting to remove the case
again on the same grounds, which would result in the imposition of monetary sanctions.
See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pulido, No. CV 12–04525 LB, 2012 WL 5199441,
*3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2012).
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Defendants are admonished to comply with applicable

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

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

2:15-cv-03007-CAS (JEMx)

Date

Title

‘O’

JS-6

June 8, 2015

U.S. BANK, N.A. v. LIOR ALKOBY, ET AL.

law governing removal to federal court. Additional unwarranted removals in this case
may result in monetary sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 5 of 5