Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lilian B Santos et al
Filing
7
ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1507941. (See document for specifics.) (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (iva)
JS-6
¡
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,
CASE NUMBER:
ED CV 15-2165- V AP (SPx)
11
Plaintiff
12
13
v.
LILLIAN B. SANTOS, et aI.,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE
COURT
14
15
Defendant(s).
16
17 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the
18 County
of San Bernardino for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.
19 "The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and 'a suit commenced in a state
20 court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.'''
21 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28,32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co.
22 v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal,
23 those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. M. Nevada v. Bank of America
24 Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
25 Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove "any civil
26 action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of
the United States have original
27 jurisdiction." 28 U.S.c. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The
28 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.
CV-136 (12/14)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page lof3
Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. "Under the plain
terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove (an) action pursuant to that provision, (the
removing defendant) must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal
courts." Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be
remanded, as "(s)ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and. . . the district court must
remand if it lacks jurisdiction." Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346
F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). "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). It is
"elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of
the district court is not a waivable matter and
may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua
sponte by the trial or reviewing court." Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2
(9th Cir. 1988).
From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it is evident
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the following reasons.
It No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified:
It The Complaint does not include any claim "arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.c. § 1331.
It Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affrmative defenses at issue give rise to
federal question jurisdiction, but "the existence of federal jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiffs claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those
claims." ARCO EnvtL. Remediation, L.L.c. v. Dept. of Health and EnvtL. Quality,
213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An "affrmative defense based on federal law"
does not "render() an action brought in state court removable." Berg v. Leason, 32
F.3d 422,426 (9th Cir. 1994). A "case may not be removed to federal court on the
basis of a federal defense. . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs
complaint, and even ifboth parties admit that the defense is the only question truly
at issue in the case." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 U.S. 1,14 (1983).
It The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and
governed by the laws of the State of California.
CV-136 (12/14)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 2 of3
..
1
It Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:
2
It Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.c. §
3
1332(a).
4
It The Complaint does not allege damages in excess of $75,000, and removing
defendant(s) has not shown, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the amount
5
in controversy requirement has been met. lQ Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683.
6
7
ø The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil action that does not
exceed $25,000.
8
9 IT is THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior
10 Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
11
IT is SO ORDERED.
12
13
Date:
LO \ 1-\1. \ ii:
\
14
\
if. t-" \1 ~S
V~~~~(\~ L/"
i
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CV-136 (12/14)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 3 of3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?