Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Nidia Y Golla et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDRS1203105. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for specifics) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (adu)

PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-00467-VAP (OPx)

Date: March 21, 2013

Title:

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION -v- NIDIA Y.
GOLLA, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)

On March 13, 2013, Pro Se Defendant Nidia Y. Golla removed this action from
the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, alleging federal
question jurisdiction. (See Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 9.) For the reasons
expressed below, the Court REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. FedermanBachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 1

EDCV 13-00467-VAP (OPx)
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. NIDIA Y. GOLLA, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of March 21, 2013

Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). "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); FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.")
Golla asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, because her demurrer depends on the determination of "Defendants'
rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law." (See Not. of Removal ¶ 9.) The
Complaint raises a single claim for unlawful detainer. (See Compl., Ex. A to Not. of
Removal.) The issues raised in Golla's demurrer are defenses to that claim.
Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
existence of a federal defense (by itself) does not, however, raise a federal question;
it is therefore an insufficient basis to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, and consequently cannot support removal of an action. Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).
As no proper basis for removal exists, the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction and REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 2