Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Lynn Behrens Zimmerman et al

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Case Remanded to Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case number 15CV01403 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc). Modified on 11/19/2015 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

14

LYNN BEHREN ZIMMERMAN;

15

CLARKE PATTON PAXTON; and DOES

16

1-10, inclusive,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case № 2:15-cv-08938-ODW (E)

Defendants.

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

On November 17, 2015, Defendants Lynn Behren Zimmerman and Clarke

3

Patton Paxton (“Defendants”) removed this action to federal court based on federal

4

question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1, Notice.) After reviewing Defendants’ Notice of

5

Removal, it is clear that no federal question issue exists, and therefore this Court lacks

6

subject matter jurisdiction.

7

unlawful detainer action to state court because Defendants improperly removed it to

8

federal court.1

9

Consequently, the Court summarily REMANDS this

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

10

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the

11

Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v.

12

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court

13

may be removed to federal court only if the federal court would have had original

14

jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

15

jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, id. § 1331, or where each

16

plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in

17

controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a).

Federal courts have original

18

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and “[f]ederal

19

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

20

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking

21

removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed

22

Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). The court may remand the action

23

sua sponte “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

24

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also United Inv’rs Life

25

Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

26
27
28

1

After carefully considering Defendants’ Notice of Removal and the documents filed in
support thereof, the Court deems the matter appropriate for sua sponte decision. United Inv’rs Life
Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

On November 17, 2015, Defendants, having been sued in what appears to be a

3

routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a Notice of Removal

4

of that action to this Court. (Notice.)

5

Simply stated, this action could not have been originally filed in federal court

6

because the complaint does not competently allege facts supporting either diversity or

7

federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),

8

see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005).

9

Defendants’ Notice of Removal only asserts that removal is proper based upon federal

10

question jurisdiction. (Notice 2.) However, the underlying unlawful detainer action

11

does not raise any federal legal question.

12

“[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the

13

well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when

14

a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

15

complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083,

16

1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475

17

(1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for relief for

18

unlawful detainer solely based on California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 1661a.

19

(ECF No. 1 Ex. C, Complaint.) Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by

20

itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law,

21

no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.2 At

22

best, Defendants can only assert federally-based defenses, which are not considered

23

when evaluating jurisdiction. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.

24

2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a

25
26
27
28

2

See, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Tyler, No. C 10-4033 PJH, 2010 WL 4918790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010)
(holding that a single claim for unlawful detainer under state law did not provide a basis for federal question
jurisdiction); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (same).

3

1

federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the

2

plaintiff’s complaint.”).

3

For the reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS the action to the

4

Superior Court, County of Santa Barbara, Case No. 15CV01403, for lack of subject

5

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of the Court shall close

6

the case.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

November 18, 2015

11
12
13
14

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4