Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Kimble et al
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to REMAND and to DISMISS the mattersigned by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/6/2011. Objections to F&R due by 6/21/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHUCK KIMBLE AND HELENE KIMBLE, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:11-cv-00605 LJO JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
REMAND THE MATTER TO THE KERN
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND TO
DISMISS THE MATTER
17
18
Currently before the Court is a motion to remand this action to the Kern County Superior
19
Court, filed by Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Plaintiff”) on April 14, 2011. (Doc. 4.) For the
20
following reasons, the Court recommends the motion to remand be GRANTED.
21
I. Factual and Procedural History
22
Plaintiff purchased real property described as 725 West Coral Avenue, Ridgecrest, California
23
93555 at a foreclosure sale on December 17, 2010. (Doc. 1 at 14-15, 18-20.) On December 23,
24
2010, Plaintiff served Chuck Kimble, Helene Kimble, and Does 1 through 5 (collectively,
25
“Defendants”) with “a written notice requiring [them] to vacate and deliver up possession of the
26
Property to plaintiff within 3 days after service of said notice,” but they failed to do so and remain in
27
possession. (Id. at 15, 21-23.) On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff sued Defendants for unlawful detainer.
28
(Id. at 14.) In the unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff sought “restitution and possession of the
1
1
property,” “damages in the amount of $30.00 per day from December 27, 2010, and for each day that
2
defendants continue in possession of the Property through the date of entry of judgment,” and “ costs
3
for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.” (Id. at 16.) Notably, on the
4
caption of the complaint, Plaintiff asserted the “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (Id. at
5
14.)
6
In January 2011, Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint for unlawful detainer based
7
upon an allegedly “inappropriate and defective” Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. (Id. at 5-
8
11.) The Superior Court for the County of Kern overruled the demurrer. (Id. at 3.) On April 14,
9
2011, Defendants filed a notice of removal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and
10
1446, arguing “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ demurrer, a pleading,
11
depends on the determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at
12
1-3.)
13
II. Removal to the Federal District Court
14
Title 28, § 1441 of the United States Code permits a defendant to remove “any civil action
15
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”
16
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A defendant asserting removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 has the burden of
17
establishing removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing
18
Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v.
19
Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). In order to meet this burden, a defendant
20
asserting federal question jurisdiction must show the civil action arises “under the Constitution, laws,
21
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
22
The removal statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, Boggs v. Lewis, 863
23
F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Insurance Co., 765 F.2d
24
815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985)), and if the right of removal is doubtful, federal jurisdiction must be
25
rejected, Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th
26
Cir. 1979)). In addition, if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case,
27
the case must be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v.
28
Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
2
1
2
III. Discussion
Defendants assert subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and
3
1446 because “the Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises[] failed to comply with The Protecting
4
Tenants at Foreclosure Act [12 U.S.C. § 5220].” (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) However, whether federal question
5
jurisdiction exists is subject to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson,
6
539 U.S. 1, 12 (2003) (citing Caterpillar Inc. V. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Under the
7
well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on
8
the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id.
9
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint is based upon a single unlawful detainer cause of action.
10
(Doc. 1 at 14.) Unlawful detainer actions arise under state law alone and are therefore not subject to
11
federal jurisdiction. OneWest Bank FSB v. Ignacio, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67012, at *2-5 (E.D. Cal.
12
July 2, 2010); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130517, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
13
Nov. 22, 2010) (citing Indymac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14
8421, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)). Although Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff failed to comply
15
with the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act may be raised as a defense in this unlawful detainer
16
action, “[a] federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court,
17
even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”
18
Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v.
19
Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983)). Consequently, Defendants’
20
argument that federal jurisdiction is present based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
21
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act fails to establish jurisdiction.
22
IV. Findings and Recommendation
23
24
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the Court hereby
RECOMMENDS:
25
1.
The motion to remand the matter be GRANTED;
26
2.
The matter be REMANDED th the Kern County Superior Court; and
27
3.
Because the order remanding this matter to state court concludes this case, the Clerk
28
of the Court is ordered to close this matter.
3
1
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
3
Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
4
fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and
5
serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
6
Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant
7
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
8
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
9
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: June 6, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?