Federal National Mortgage Association v. Fidel Padua

Filing 8

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: (see document image for further details). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (ad)

PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-00086-VAP (DTBx)

Date: January 22, 2014

Title:

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, A/K/A FANNIE MAE -vFIDEL PADUA; DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
===============================================================
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

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

On November 18, 2013, Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie
Mae ("Fannie Mae") ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer ("Complaint")
against Defendant Fidel Padua. (See Ex. A to Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) On
January 14, 2014, Defendant Fidel Padua ("Padua") ("Defendant"), appearing pro se,
removed the action to this Court on the basis of Fannie Mae's association with the
government, diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332), and civil rights case jurisdiction
(28 U.S.C. § 1443(a)).
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,
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk vp for MD

Page 1

EDCV 14-00086-VAP (DTBx)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, A/K/A FANNIE MAE v. FIDEL PADUA; DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of January 22, 2014

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach &
Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford 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.").
Defendant alleges the basis for removal is civil rights cases jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443. From the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful
detainer. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10
(1983) (holding that a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the
basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Without a civil
rights action, there is no federal jurisdiction under section 1443. The notice of removal
appears to allege a violation of civil rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983 counterclaim based on
alleged racial discrimination, however, federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual
or anticipated counterclaim or defense. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60
(2009).
Defendant also alleges the basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1332. From the face of the Complaint, however, Defendant does not meet the amount
in controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On the
face of the Complaint, the amount in controversy for the unlawful detainer action, which
is the only action being removed, is less than $10,000. (See Ex. A to Not. of Removal.)
Accordingly, the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.
To the extent Defendant argues that the value of the property should be considered
because the unlawful detainer is a result of a wrongful foreclosure, the Court notes that
wrongful foreclosure is a counterclaim, and federal jurisdiction may not be determined
based on actual or anticipated counterclaims.
Defendant further asserts the Court has jurisdiction because Fannie Mae is a
"government sponsored enterprise and engages with the Federal Housing
Administration." The governing statutes do not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk vp for MD

Page 2

EDCV 14-00086-VAP (DTBx)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, A/K/A FANNIE MAE v. FIDEL PADUA; DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of January 22, 2014

on all actions involving Fannie Mae. See Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass'n. v. De-Savineau,
2010 WL 3397027 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010) (remanding unlawful detainer action
brought by Plaintiff Fannie Mae for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Accordingly, the Court 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 vp for MD

Page 3