Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas et al v. Ernie Ale et al

Filing 6

ORDER that the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The case is accordingly REMANDED to Riverside County Superior Court by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: cc: order, docket, remand letter to Riverside County Superior Court, Hemet, Case number HEC 1300422 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 3/1/2013 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Riverside County Superior Court,
Hemet, No. HEC 1300422

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS as Trustee for RALI 2003QS15,

11
12
13

v.

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT

ERNIE ALE et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 5:13-cv-00350-ODW (DTBx)

On February 25, 2013, Defendants Ernie Ale and Andrea Bond removed this

16

case from Riverside County Superior Court to this Court.

But after carefully

17

considering the papers filed in conjunction with the Notice of Removal, the Court

18

determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

19

accordingly REMANDED to Riverside County Superior Court.

The case is

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only having subject-matter

21

jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g.,

22

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

23

state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had

24

original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But a removed action must be

25

remanded to state court if the federal court finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28

26

U.S.C. § 1447(c).

27

jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006)

28

(citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal

1

Here, Ale and Bond claim that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction over

2

this state-law unlawful-detainer action under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure

3

Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (ECF No. 1.)

4

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the

5

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

6

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

7

complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A case may not

8

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. Hunter v. Phillip Morris

9

USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Court finds that it lacks federal-question jurisdiction over this case. There

10
11

is no federal-question jurisdiction over unlawful-detainers actions.

Aurora Loan

12

Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal.

13

June 27, 2011); see also IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010

14

WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action sua sponte to state

15

court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only

16

an unlawful-detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009 WL

17

3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim

18

for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from

19

the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction

20

exists.”).

21

Neither does federal-question jurisdiction lie for Defendants at the end of the

22

PTFA tunnel. Defendants claim that Deutsche Bank Trust Company’s Complaint is

23

based upon the PTFA and unlawful detainer. (Notice of Removal ¶ 7.) Not so.

24

Plaintiff brought its Complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure section

25

1161a—an entirely state-law claim. That Defendants might potentially assert some

26

defense based on the PTFA, or that Defendants think the case could have been filed

27

under the PTFA, does not vest this Court with federal-question jurisdiction.

28

///

2

1

Defendants do not argue removal based upon diversity jurisdiction—and for

2

good reason.

3

DEMANDED DOES NOT EXCEED $10,000.” (Compl. 1.) Such amount falls far

4

short of the $75,000 amount-in-controversy minimum threshold. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

5

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the

6

Plaintiff specifically alleged in its Complaint that the “AMOUNT

Riverside County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

February 28, 2013

9
10
11

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3