HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Faith Brashear et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case number MVC 1603595. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-116-JLS-SPx
Date: January 27, 2017
Title:
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Faith Brashear

Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. MVC
1603595
Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association filed this unlawful detainer
action against Defendant Faith Brashear (erroneously sued as Donna Beltz) on September
30, 2016 in Riverside County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal, Ex. 4, “Complaint,”
Doc. 1.) Brashear removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Notice of Removal at 4.) Where a federal
district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case, and has the
discretion to do so sua sponte. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead
Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to Riverside County
Superior Court.
When reviewing a notice of removal, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary
rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039,
1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the removal
statute against removal jurisdiction,” and thus “the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). Moreover, removal is proper only in “state-court actions that originally could
have been filed in federal court . . . .” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-116-JLS-SPx
Date: January 27, 2017
Title:
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Faith Brashear

(1987). “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).
Here, Brashear identifies various federal statutes that purport to vest the Court
with subject matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 4–5.) These statutes, however,
are irrelevant to determining subject matter jurisdiction in this case because HSBC’s
complaint states only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer and implicates none
of the federal statutes referenced by Brashear. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987) (“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed
by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.”) At best, Brashear relies upon a federal defense to a state-law claim. The
assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim
into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore,
the Court has no federal question jurisdiction.
Nor does the present action meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The
Complaint expressly states that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. (See
Compl.) Therefore the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not
met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, in the absence of a federal question, where the
Court’s jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, a removing defendant may
not be a citizen of the forum state. Here, Brashear’s address shows that she is a
California citizen and is therefore clearly a forum defendant who lacks the ability to
remove a state-court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Riverside County Superior Court, Case
Number MVC 1603595.

Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2