U.S. Bank National Association v. Austin

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING CASE to Stanislaus County Superior Court signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/27/2012. Copy of remand order mailed to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, 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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
etc.,

13

CASE NO. CV F 12-2071 LJO BAM
ORDER TO REMAND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER ACTION

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

(Doc. 1.)

15

BRIAN AUSTIN,

16

Defendant.

17

/

18

INTRODUCTION

19

Pro se defendant Brian Austin (“defendant”) filed papers to attempt to remove an unlawful

20

detainer action brought against him by plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“plaintiff”) in

21

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

22

detainer action to warrant remand to the Stanislaus 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
Defendant’s 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

Plaintiff’s state court complaint seeks unlawful detainer relief, which arises under state law. See
2

1

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

2

are strictly the province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist.

3

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

4

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

5

after establishing that the property at issue sold in compliance with California Civil Code section 2924

6

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

7

of Civil Procedure section 1161. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8018,

8

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

9

papers fail to challenge the state-law roots of plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. Defendant fails to

10

invoke federal question jurisdiction despite his papers’ reference to federal statutes.

11

Diversity Jurisdiction

12
13
14

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 –

15
(1) citizens of different States . . .
16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23

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

24
25
26

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

27

1.

REMANDS this action to the Stanislaus County Superior Court; and

28

2.

DIRECTS the clerk to take necessary action to remand this action to the Stanislaus
3

1

County Superior Court and to close this action.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 27, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
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