Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Kym A Parker et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDVS1501164. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for specifics.) (iva)

                                                                    PRIORITY

SEND

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 15-01126-VAP (SPx)

Date: June 15, 2015

Title:

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC. -v- KYM A.
PARKER, AND DOES 1-5
===============================================================
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 CASE TO CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (IN
CHAMBERS)

On May 21, 2015, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Plaintiff") filed a
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Kym A. Parker ("Defendant"). (See
Complaint included as Exh. 1 to Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) On June 10,
2015, Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal question and diversity
jurisdiction. (See Not. of Removal.) For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS
the action to the California Superior Court, 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. FedermanMINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 1

EDCV 15-01126-VAP (SPx)
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC. v. KYM A. PARKER, AND DOES 1-5
MINUTE ORDER of June 15, 2015

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 federal question and diversity
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. From the face of the Complaint,
Plaintiff'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).
Defendant alleges federal question jurisdiction under several Internal Revenue
Service Code sections, and 24 CFR § 27.15. The Complaint in this matter, however,
raises a single claim for unlawful detainer. Therefore, the Court must conclude that
Defendant intends to raise this federal claim as a defense.
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 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).
Defendant also argues that diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, but Defendant cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for
diversity jurisdiction. In unlawful detainer actions, only the right to possession is at
issue, not the title to the property. See Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d
162, 170 (1977). Thus, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount of
damages sought in the complaint, rather than the value of the subject real property.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 2

EDCV 15-01126-VAP (SPx)
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC. v. KYM A. PARKER, AND DOES 1-5
MINUTE ORDER of June 15, 2015

Id. Plaintiff filed this action as a “limited jurisdiction” case, where the amount in
controversy does not exceed $10,000. (See Complaint at 1.) As such, this case
cannot meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Thus, Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that the case is
properly in federal court. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the
California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 3