Bank of The Sierra v. Soto, et al

Filing 5

ORDER To Remand Unlawful Detainer Action (Doc. 1 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/13/2011. REMANDING CASE to Tulare County Superior Court. Certified Copy of remand order sent to Tulare County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
BANK OF THE SIERRA,

CASE NO. CV F 11-2045 LJO DLB

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO REMAND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER ACTION
(Doc. 1.)

13
vs.
14
ROSARIO SOTO, et al.
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

Defendants Rosario Soto and Cindy Soto (collectively “the Sotos”) filed papers to attempt to

20

remove an unlawful detainer action brought against them by plaintiff Bank of the Sierra in Tulare

21

County Superior Court. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action

22

to warrant remand to the Tulare County Superior Court.

23

DISCUSSION

24

Removal

25

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district

26

court has original jurisdiction. Catepillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). The removal

27

statute provides:

28

Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action
1

1
2

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.

3
4

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

5

A removing party must file a notice of removal of a civil action within 30 days of receipt of a

6

copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts

7

resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

8

1992). The removing party bears the burden to prove propriety of removal. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co.,

9

443 F.3d 676, 683-685 (9th Cir. 2006); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

10

Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the burden of establishing

11

federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). A district court may remand an action to

12

state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. §

13

1447(c).

14
15

Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C.
1332(a) (diversity).

16
17
18
19
20

Federal Question Jurisdiction
The Sotos’ papers fail to establish a federal question to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.
District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

21

Determination of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’

22

which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of

23

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question

24

jurisdiction, a complaint must establish “either that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that (2)

25

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

26

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100

27

(9th Cir. 2008).

28

Bank of the Sierra’s state court complaint seeks unlawful detainer relief, which arises under state
2

1

law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“Unlawful

2

detainer actions are strictly the province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo,

3

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at * 2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful

4

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law”). An unlawful detainer plaintiff is entitled

5

to judgement after establishing that the property at issue sold in compliance with California Civil Code

6

section 2924 and that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served on defendant as required by

7

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, U.S. Dist.

8

LEXIS 8018, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 (1977).

9

The Sotos’ papers fail to challenge the state-law roots of Bank of the Sierra’s unlawful detainer

10

action. The Sotos fail to invoke federal question jurisdiction despite their papers’ reference to federal

11

statutes.

12

Diversity Jurisdiction

13
14
15

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) establishes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and provides in pertinent
part:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between –

16
(1) citizens of different States . . .
17
18

To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of

19

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In an unlawful detainer action, “the right to possession alone [is]

20

involved – not title to the property.” Litton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8081, at *6-7. A defendant “bears

21

the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”

22

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996).

23
24

Bank of the Sierra’s unlawful detainer complaint seeks nowhere near $75,000. The amount in
controversy fails to establish diversity jurisdiction.

25
26
27
28

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, the Sotos’ papers fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. As such, this Court:
1.

REMANDS this action to the Tulare County Superior Court; and
3

1

2.

2

Superior Court and to close this action.

3
4

DIRECTS the clerk to take necessary action to remand this action to the Tulare County

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

December 13, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4