U.S. Bank National Association v. Richard I. Fine et al

Filing 17

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: GRANTING 6 Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's MOTION to Remand Case to State Court Case Remanded to 16B03537. Plaintiffs request for reasonable attorneys fees in relation to this matter is DENIED. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (shb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’ JS-6
2:16-cv-06643-CAS(KSx)
Date October 27, 2016
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RICHARD I. FINE ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present

Not Present 

Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION’S MOTION TO REMAND (Dkt. 6, filed
September 28, 2016)

I.

INTRODUCTION

On August 23, 2016, U.S. Bank National Association (“plaintiff”) filed an
unlawful detainer action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Richard I.
Fine, Maryellen Olman Fine, and Does 1–10 (“defendants”). Dkt. 1, Ex. A
(“Complaint”). Defendants are allegedly occupants and possessors of a real property in
Tarzana, California (“Property”). Compl. ¶ 2.
Plaintiff acquired title to the Property at a non-judicial foreclosure sale on August
5, 2016. Id. ¶ 5; Compl. Ex. 1. On August 16, 2016, plaintiff caused to be duly served
on defendants a written notice requiring defendants to quit and deliver possession of the
Property to plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 6; Compl. Ex. 2 (“Notice to Quit”). The time to deliver
the Property as set forth in the Notice to Quit has expired, but defendants continue in
possession of the Property. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8.
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on September 2, 2016, dkt. 1 (“Removal”).
Defendants contend that the Court has original jurisdiction because “FDCPA 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692” precludes plaintiff and plaintiff’s servicer, Gregory Funding, LLC, “from
taking any action.” Id. ¶¶ 4–5. Defendants contend that Gregory Funding “was deemed
to be a debt collector in its October 28, 2015 Notice of Default to the Fines[.]” Id. ¶ 5.
Defendants assert that they brought an action in federal court “to enforce the FDCPA
violations,” id. ¶ 7, and that plaintiff knew in filing its action that “it raised the underlying
FDCPA 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 statute violations and federal jurisdiction on the issue of

CV-6643 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’ JS-6
2:16-cv-06643-CAS(KSx)
Date October 27, 2016
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RICHARD I. FINE ET AL.

U.S. Bank’s right to possession of the property[,]” id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff also aver that it has
filed an action “in this Court” to clear title, quiet title, and set aside the foreclosure sale
and other causes of action, No. 16-06608-SVW-SS, which provides supplemental
jurisdiction to the FDCPA issues raised in this action. Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court
on September 28, 2016. Dkt. 6. Defendants filed their opposition on October 11, 2016,
dkt. 9, and plaintiff filed its reply on October 14, 2016, dkt. 11.
III.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction
only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant attempting to remove an
action from state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See
Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Removal is proper where the
federal courts would have had original jurisdiction over an action filed in state court. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts recognize a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction
and place the burden on the removing defendant to demonstrate that subject matter
jurisdiction exists. See 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, 2011 WL 662324, *1
(C.D. Cal. Feb.11, 2011) (explaining the two types of jurisdiction).
IV.

DISCUSSION

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal, attached Complaint, and
plaintiff’s Motion to Remand make clear that this Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the instant matter.

CV-6643 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’ JS-6
2:16-cv-06643-CAS(KSx)
Date October 27, 2016
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RICHARD I. FINE ET AL.

A.

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). In unlawful detainer actions, “California courts have noted that ‘the
right to possession alone [is] involved,’ - not title to the property.” Litton Loan
Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting
Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977)). Therefore, “the amount of
damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines
the amount in controversy.” Id. at *2. Where, as here, plaintiff seeks cumulative
damages based on the reasonable daily value of possession, courts calculate the amount
in controversy based on cumulative possession thus far. Id.
The amount in controversy here does not exceed $75,000. The complaint seeks
only the reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the premises, calculated at $50 per
day from the expiration of the Notice to Quit (August 20, 2016), to the date when
defendants yield possession of the property to plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 9. In the
approximately 69 days between August 20, 2016 and now, the cumulative amount in
controversy is only $3,400. Accordingly, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
B.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

There is no federal question apparent on the face of plaintiff’s complaint, which
alleges only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v.
Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action
does not arise under federal law.”); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, 2010 WL
234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful
detainer claim). Because plaintiff does not allege facts supplying federal question
jurisdiction, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court and removal was
improper. See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)
(“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be
removed to federal court by the defendant.”).
Defendants appear to argue that a federal question arises from the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Removal ¶¶ 5–10. Defendants

CV-6643 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’ JS-6
2:16-cv-06643-CAS(KSx)
Date October 27, 2016
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RICHARD I. FINE ET AL.

contend that “nonjudicial foreclosure exists under the FDCPA” therefore “a federal cause
of action exists under the FDCPA.” Opp’n at 2. Defendants allege that Gregory Funding
“has been an active ‘debt collector’ against the Fines.” Id. at 3.
The FDCPA “imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited
debt collection practices.” Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA,
559 U.S. 573, 576 (2010). The Court agrees with plaintiff that plaintiff is not attempting
to collect a debt or satisfy a post-foreclosure deficiency judgment by means of its
unlawful detainer action. Furthermore, “nonjudicial foreclosure is not debt collection.”
Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
(collecting cases). Therefore plaintiff’s conduct is not subject the FDCPA. In addition,
this Court has already determined that plaintiff is not a “debt collector” within the
meaning of the FDCPA. See Fine v. Gregory Fund, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02263-RGK-JPR,
dkt. 56 at 4. The Court further finds that plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action arises under
state law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1161a; Cal. Civ. Code § 2924. Because plaintiff’s
complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the
Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, the Court may
not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this action on the basis of a different action
pending in the Central District of California. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No.
2:10-cv-8203-GAF-SS, 2010 WL 4916578, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (noting that
the supplemental jurisdiction statute “does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over
free-standing state law claims that are related to a separate action over which the court
has jurisdiction”); cf. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 34 (2002)
(“Ancillary jurisdiction . . . cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners must
show in order to qualify for removal under § 1441.”).
C.

Remand

Having evaluated whether the Court has either diversity or federal question
jurisdiction over this matter and concluded it does not, the Court has determined that this
case must be remanded to state court.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED and
this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,

CV-6643 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’ JS-6
2:16-cv-06643-CAS(KSx)
Date October 27, 2016
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RICHARD I. FINE ET AL.

forthwith. Plaintiff’s request for reasonable attorneys’ fees in relation to this matter is
DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 
Initials of Preparer

CV-6643 (10/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 

00 

CMJ 

Page 5 of 5