Fannie Mae v. Ezell et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING Unopposed 6 Motion to Remand signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/26/2011. (Proposed Order Consistent with Memorandum Decision due within 5 days of Electronic Service)(Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

FANNIE MAE (“FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION”)

11

1:11-cv-00973 OWW SMS
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 6)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

VANCE EZELL, REBECCA EZELL,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

This action concerns real property located at 4132 West Paul
Avenue, Fresno, California 93722 (“Subject Property”).
Plaintiff, Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”),

19
20
21

purchased the Subject Property at a trustee’s sale on November 5,
2010.

Doc. 1, Complaint, at ¶ 4.

Defendants Vance and Rebecca

22

Ezell were served with a written 3-Day Notice to Vacate on

23

January 7, 2011.

24

with the Notice to Vacate, id. at ¶ 9, and Fannie Mae filed an

25

action for unlawful detainer in Fresno County Superior Court on

26
27

Id., Exs. B & C.

Defendants failed to comply

January 20, 2011, see generally, Doc. 1 at p. 10 of 26.

On June

13, 2011, Defendants removed the case to federal court on the

28
1

1

basis of federal question jurisdiction.

2

See Doc. 1, Notice of

Removal, at 2-3.

3
4

The procedure for removal is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446,
which provides, in pertinent part:

5
The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding
shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by
the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy
of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for
relief upon which such action or proceeding is based,
or within thirty days after the service of summons upon
the defendant if such initial pleading has then been
filed in court and is not required to be served on the
defendant, whichever period is shorter.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Defendants’ own Demurrer admits Defendants

were served with the complaint for unlawful detainer on January
21, 2011.

Doc. 1, Ex. B, p. 22 of 26.

Removal on June 13, 2011

was untimely.
Even if, arguendo, removal was timely, there is no basis for

17

subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

18

removal is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides that a

19

defendant may remove to federal court any action over which the

20

federal court would have original jurisdiction:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The standard for

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of
Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant
or the defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending. For purposes of
removal under this chapter, the citizenship of
defendants sued under fictitious names shall be
disregarded.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
2

1

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions

2

arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of

3

the United States -- so called “federal questions.”

4

1331.

28 U.S.C. §

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-

5
6
7

pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that the federal question
must be presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183

8

complaint.

9

(9th Cir. 2002).

The existence of a defense based on federal law

10

is insufficient.

Id.

11

jurisdiction because the face of the complaint reveals only one

12
13
14
15

Here, there is no federal question

claim: a state law cause of action for unlawful detainer, to
recover possession of real property, an inherently local action,
involving the law of real property and contract.

That Defendants

16

claim that the Notice to Quit failed to comply with the

17

Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220 is

18

irrelevant under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

19
20
21

Alternatively, a Federal court may assert original
jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000 in value, exclusive of interest and costs, and is

22
23
24

between citizens of different States, pursuant to the “diversity”
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Here, based on Defendants’ own

25

admission in their removal papers, they reside at the Subject

26

Property, which is located in California.

27

22 of 26.

28

Doc. 1, Demurrer, p.

Defendants are citizens of the state in which this
3

1

action is brought and therefore are barred from removing this

2

case to federal court.

3
4

Plaintiff also requests that it be allowed to recover its
reasonable fees and costs incurred in filing this motion for

5
6
7

remand, in the amount of $875 plus costs.

Doc. 6 at 3; Doc. 6,

Declaration of Glenn H. Wechsler, at ¶ 4.

28 U.S.C. § 1447

8

provides that “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment

9

of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees,

10

incurred as a result of the removal.”

11

circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c),

12
13
14
15

“Absent unusual

only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal.”
546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
A pro se defendant is “entitled to

16

more leeway in his attempt to comply with the removal statute, as

17

long as it was not objectively unreasonable.”

18

N.A. v. Bryant, 2009 WL 3787195 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009).

19

Nevertheless, pro se litigants “must follow the same rules of

20

procedure that govern other litigants.”

21

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

HSBC Bank USA,

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

Defendants have failed to offer any

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

explanation for this removal, which fails to comply with the
facial requirements of the removal statute, and have filed no
opposition.
Plaintiff’s fee request includes 6.0 billable hours to
review the notice of removal, prepare a motion to remand,
4

1

memorandum of points and authorities, and a declaration.

Billing

2

rates for Fannie Mae are $175/hour, for a total of $875.

This

3

motion did not require 6.0 hours of billable time.

4

This is a

straightforward motion to remand that should have been prepared

5
6
7
8

largely from experience.

The motion did not even raise the most

obvious defect in the removal, timeliness.

For overbilling and

shoddy work, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
CONCLUSION

9
10

For the reasons set forth above:

11

(1) This action is REMANDED to Fresno County Superior Court;

12
13
14
15

and
(2) Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order consistent with this

16

memorandum decision within five (5) days following electronic

17

service.

18
19

SO ORDERED
Dated: July 26, 2011

20

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5