US Bank National Association v. Ralph Wayne Allen et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING Action to California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: (see document image for specifics). "If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhib its annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal court. See In re Ford Motor Co/Citibank (South Dakota), NA, 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."). For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (ad)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 16-1436-JGB (SPx)

Date July 7, 2016

Title US Bank National Association v. Ralph Wayne Allen et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present
None Present
Proceedings: Minute Order REMANDING Action to California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino (IN CHAMBERS)
I. BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint for unlawful detainer (“Complaint”) against Defendant Ralph Wayne Allen
(“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
(Not. of Removal at 12, Doc. No. 1.) On July 1, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this
Court. (Not. of Removal, Doc. No. 1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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. 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.").

Page 1 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

III. DISCUSSION
The Notice of Removal states two grounds for removal. First, Defendant alleges that
diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy is more than
$75,000. (Notice of Removal at 5-6.) Second, Defendant alleges that removal is proper on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Id. at 5.)
A. Diversity
Defendant has not met the burden of demonstrating that diversity of citizenship exists.
Defendant has not adequately alleged an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. The
caption of the unlawful detainer complaint states that the amount demanded is less than $10,000.
(Complaint at 1.) Although a defendant's notice of removal need only include a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014), Defendant’s allegation that the
amount in controversy is $510,000 is implausible. In unlawful detainer actions, the title to the
property is not involved—only the right to possession is implicated. Evans v. Superior Court, 67
Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). The amount in controversy is not the value of the subject real
property, but the reasonable rental value per day of the property, up to a total of $10,000.00.
Evans, 67 Cal. App. 3d at 170; see also, U.S. Bank N.A. v. Medina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43054,
at *4–5, 2012 WL 1136126 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012). Thus, Defendant has not established that
diversity jurisdiction exists.
B. Federal Question
In order for removal to be proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Defendant
must show that Plaintiff’s “‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the
cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208,
1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677,
689–90 (2006). “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987). “A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her
claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).
Defendant asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to “Consumer
Finance and Protection Act, Mortgage Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Act, Truth in
Lending Act, Implied Covenant and Good Faith Act, Federal Housing and Administration
Mortgage Servicer Contract, and 14[sic] Amendment of U.S. Constitution.” (Notice of Removal
at 5, Doc. No. 1.) However, an anticipated federal defense does not confer jurisdiction on the
Court to hear the case. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11–01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117,
*1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“[T]he [Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act] only provides
tenants with federal defenses to eviction but does not create a federal ejectment claim or any
private right of action . . . .”).
Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California
state law action. (Not. of Removal at 12-14, Doc. No. 1); see Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, *3 (“an
unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of
California law”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-8203, 2010 WL 4916578, *2
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010).) Further, Plaintiff's right to relief on the unlawful detainer claim does
not depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Rather, Plaintiff is entitled
to judgment upon establishing that the subject property was sold in accordance with California
Civil Code § 2924 and that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served on Defendant as
required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a. Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d
162, 168 (1977). Accordingly, due to the absence of a federal claim or substantial question of
federal law, Defendant has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction based on a federal question
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
IV. CONCLUSION
"If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhibits annexed
thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary
remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined
the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that
this case is properly in federal court. See In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,
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.").
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of
California, San Bernardino County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG