Federal National Mortgage Association v. Armando Tapia et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-2013-00622614. The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (db)

JS-6
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-692-JST (ANx)
Title: Federal National Mortgage Association v. Armando Tapia

Date: May 6, 2013

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, 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
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-201300622614
Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed this unlawful detainer action
against Defendant Armando Tapia on January 7, 2013 in Orange County Superior Court, Case
Number 30-2013-00622614. (Notice of Removal (“Notice”) Ex. A (“Compl.”), Doc. 1.) On
May 1, 2013, Defendant removed this action on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, and civil-rights jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1443. (Notice at 2-5.) 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 the Orange 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 (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).
Defendant apparently contends that removal is proper on the basis of federal-question
jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claim implicates various amendments to the United States
Constitution; the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601, et. seq.); the Equal Opportunity Act
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

JS-6
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-692-JST (ANx)
Title: Federal National Mortgage Association v. Armando Tapia

Date: May 6, 2013

(15 U.S.C. § 1691, et. seq.) and the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. §
2601, et. seq.). (Notice at 2-3.) However, “[a] federal law defense to a state-law claim does not
confer jurisdiction on a federal court.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.
2005) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14
(1983) (“[I]t has been settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of
a federal defense.”). Rather, “[t]he 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.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing Gully v. First Nat'l
Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936)). Because this complaint only contains an unlawful detainer
action based on California Civil Procedure Code section 1161(a) (Compl.),
a federal question does not present itself. See IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.
EDCV 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2010) (remanding an action to state
court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an
unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411,
at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer,
a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is
clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”).
Additionally, Defendant appears to argue for civil-rights removal, but fails to show that
removal under § 1443 is appropriate because he has not “reference[d] . . . a [California] state
statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore [their]
federal rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006); see Georgia v.
Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788 (1966). Although Defendant declares that “[t]he judges in California,
each and every one, holds a prejudicial interest in bank product,” (Notice ¶ 6); and that
“California Courts are corrupted by payments received from bank product, securities invested,
voiding fair, open, untainted process,” (Notice at 2, ¶ 3); he fails to assert how any statute
commands the state courts to ignore his federal rights.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court, Case Number 30-201300622614.

Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2