HSBC Bank USA v. Estrelita V Jacob et al

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II : cc: order, docket, remand letter to San Bernardino Superior Court, Fontana, Case number UDFS1304686. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc) Modified on 12/5/2013 (lc). Modified on 12/5/2013 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES
CORPORATION, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
2006-AR14,

14
15
16
17

v.

Case No. 5:13-cv-02191-ODW(JCx)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiffs,

ESTRELITA V. JACOB; EDGAR E.
JACOB; DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.

18
19
20

On November 27, 2013, Defendants Estrelita and Edgar Jacob removed this

21

unlawful-detainer action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) Having carefully considered the

22

papers filed in conjunction with the Defendants’ Notice, the Court REMANDS this

23

case to the San Bernardino Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has original

1

jurisdiction over cases asserting a federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

2

Id. §§ 1331, 1332; Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.,

3

295 F.3d 918, 924. A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal

4

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

5

The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

6

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

7

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). “The presence or absence of

8

federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which

9

provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on

10

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

11

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A plaintiff may therefore avoid federal jurisdiction by

12

relying exclusively on state law, since “federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an

13

actual or anticipated defense.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); see

14

also Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It is

15

settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal

16

defense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

17

A case removed from state court should be remanded if it appears that it was

18

removed improvidently. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because the “removal statutes are

19

strictly construed against removal,” doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of

20

remand. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979); see

21

also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must

22

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).

23

Defendants premise their removal solely on federal-question grounds. But on

24

its face, Plaintiffs’ state-law unlawful-detainer Complaint does not present a federal

25

question. Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26

69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011); see also IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v.

27

Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte

28

remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where

2

1

plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin

2

Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here,

3

the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is

4

purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no

5

basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”).

6

The Defendants allege that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction because

7

they “believed that the Assignment of Deed of Trust are fraudulent and questionable.”

8

(Not. of Removal 4.) But this does not present a federal question. Further, the

9

underlying issue in this case is not an alleged violation of federal law. Rather,

10

Plaintiffs brought an unlawful-detainer action against Defendants as the result of a

11

completed trustee’s sale. (Compl. ¶ 9.) An unlawful-detainer action is a purely a

12

creature of state—not federal—law. Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

exists.”). Any federal defense Veliz Defendants raise is irrelevant with regard to

17

jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60; Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042–43. Therefore, the

18

Court does not have jurisdiction over this case.

19

As best as the Court can construe, Defendants seem to assert that the Court has

20

also has diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. But diversity jurisdiction does not exist

21

in this matter. Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a

22

federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §

23

1332. To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find complete diversity

24

of citizenship among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed

25

$75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

26

The amount in controversy here does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction

27

threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). Regarding actions seeking

28

declaratory or injunctive relief, “it is well established that the amount in controversy is

3

1

measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281

2

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n,

3

432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). And in unlawful-detainer actions, the title to the property

4

is not the object of the litigation—only the right to possession. See Evans v. Super.

5

Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). The amount in controversy in an unlawful-

6

detainer action is therefore determined by the amount of damages sought in the

7

complaint—here, less than $6,000—not by the value of the subject property. Id. The

8

amount in controversy therefore does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of

9

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b); see also

10

Evans, 67 Cal. App. 3d at 170.

11

The Court therefore finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and

12

REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County,

13

17780 Arrow Highway, Fontana, California 92335, case number UDFS1304686. The

14

Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

December 4, 2013

18
19
20

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4