Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Deborah Roquemore et al

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER (1) VACATING JUNE 15, 2015 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND (2) REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number TEC1401695. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for specifics.) (iva)

JS-6
PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 15-00745-VAP (DTBx)

Date: April 30, 2015

Title:

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc. -v- DEBORAH
ROQUEMORE, et al.
===============================================================
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 (1) VACATING JUNE 15, 2015
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND (2) REMANDING
ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR
THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS)

On July 24, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for
Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14, Mortgage Loan Pass-Through
Certificates Series 20016-14 ("Deutsche Bank") filed a Complaint in the California
Superior Court for the County of Riverside for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants
Deborah Roquemore and Rick Roquemore ("the Roquemores"), in case number
TEC 1401695. (See Ex. A to Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) On April 16, 2015, the
Roquemores, appearing pro se, removed the action to this Court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction, asserting that Deutsche Bank violated the Protecting

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 1

EDCV 15-00745-VAP (DTBx)
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al. v. DEBORAH ROQUEMORE, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of April 30, 2015

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 ("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (See Not. of
Removal.) For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the
California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
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
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.").
The Roquemores argue that Deutsche Bank's unlawful detainer action is
based "upon a notice which expressly references and incorporates the 'Protecting
Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,' 12 U.S.C. § 5201." (Not. of Removal at 3.)
Specifically, the Roquemores contend that Deutsche Bank violated the PTFA by
filing a state eviction proceeding before allowing 90 days to lapse. (Id.) Accordingly,
the Roquemores contend that Deutsche Bank's violation of federal law confers this
Court with federal question jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions
"arising under" federal law. From the face of the Complaint, however, Deutsche
Bank's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. 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). Furthermore, as the
Ninth Circuit has recently held, the PTFA "does not create a private right of action."
Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013). In other words,
Deutsche Bank is barred from suing the Roquemores under the PTFA. Thus, the
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 2

EDCV 15-00745-VAP (DTBx)
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al. v. DEBORAH ROQUEMORE, et al.
MINUTE ORDER of April 30, 2015

argument that Deutsche Bank has stated a federal claim under the PTFA upon
which this Court may exercise jurisdiction is without merit. As "[a]n unlawful detainer
action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed,
must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction," the Court will remand this action. See
Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19,
2003).
Additionally, the Court notes that this is the third time that the Roquemores
have removed this action to the district court. On October 28, 2014, the
Roquemores removed this action in case number 5:14-cv-02209-VAP-DTBx. This
Court remanded on November 12, 2014, on the same grounds as discussed above.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Deborah Roquemore, et al.,
5:14-cv-02209-VAP-DTBx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014) (Doc. No. 11).
The Roquemores removed this action again on February 4, 2015, in case
number 5:15-cv-00206-JGB-SPx. The case was sua sponte remanded two days
later on February 6, 2015. In the order remanding, Judge Bernal noted that "the
Court has examined the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendants have not
met their burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal court." Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company v. Deborah Roquemore, et al.,
5:15-cv-00206-JGB-SPx (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2015) (Doc. No. 6).
The Court cautions Defendants that future attempts to remove this action may
be grounds for monetary sanctions or a finding that they are vexatious litigants, or
both.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court
for the County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 3