U.S. Bank National Association vs. Bellinger

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to REMAND Case to Calveras County Superior Court. VACATING Hearing on October 10, 2014 on the Motion to Remand. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to the F&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/2/2014. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE
FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE
SECURITIES CORP, CSMC
MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-4,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO REMAND CASE TO CALVERAS
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
VACATING HEARING ON OCTOBER 10,
2014 ON THE MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1: 14-cv-1538-JAM-BAM

MARK BELLINGER,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Defendant Mark Bellinger (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, filed this “removal” action on
September 2, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff U.S. Bank filed a motion to remand.
Doc. 2.) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on September 25, 2014. (Doc. 7.) The
underlying complaint is an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff. By order on September 19,
2014, this motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rules 302 through 304.1 The Court determines the matter is suitable for decision without oral
argument. Therefore, the hearing set for October 10, 2014 is vacated and the matter is hereby
submitted on the pleadings. See Local Rule 78-230(g). Having considered the parties’ papers, the

25
26
1

27
28

By order on October 1, 2014, this Court redesignated this removed case to its own, separate case.
Defendant had removed the unlawful detainer action “into” an existing case which Defendant has
against this plaintiff and other parties. The Court determined that this unlawful detainer action should
be its own case.
1

1
2
3
4

entire file in this action and in the case of 1:14-cv-1076, Bellinger v. Wells Fargo, the Court rules as
follows. For the reasons stated below, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful
detainer action, and therefore recommends this case be remanded to the Calaveras County Superior
Court.

5
6

DISCUSSION
A.

7
8
9

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

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

10
Except 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 defendants, to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

11
12
13
14

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

443 F.3d 676, 683–685 (9th Cir.2006); Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th

20

Cir.2004) (“the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). A

21

district court may remand an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in

22

the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

23

B.

This Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Claims

24

1.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

25

Defendant alleges that removal is proper based on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 7.)

26

Defendant argues that federal question jurisdiction exists because he is challenging the

27

constitutionality of the foreclosure statutes under which Plaintiff obtained title to the property.

28
2

1

Defendant contends the California foreclosure statutes, Cal Code Civ.P. §§1161-1162 and Cal.Civ.C.

2

§§2924-2934, violate Due Process, Equal Protection and other Constitutional provisions.
District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

3
4

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Determination of federal question jurisdiction

5

“is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

6

when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

7

Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish “either

8

that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that (2) plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends

9

on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An

10

Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).
The complaint states a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Doc. 1, p. 8. Plaintiff

11
12

alleges that it served on Defendant a written Notice to Occupants to vacate premises and that

13

defendant did not vacate the premises.2 Claims for unlawful detainer arise under state law, not federal

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law”). Accordingly, the Court does not have

18

subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not contain a federal question.

19

Defendant argues that removal is proper because he has challenged the complaint by alleging

20

that the statutes are unconstitutional. However, any purported federal law defense or counterclaim is

21

insufficient to confer jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410

22

F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer

23

jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the

24
25
2

26
27
28

A complaint for unlawful detainer is a very specific action. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 1161 a. It exists to provide a
landlord with a remedy of a speedy eviction. Childs v. Eltinge, 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 853, 105 Cal.Rptr. 864
(Cal.Ct.App.1973) (affirming that “the very purpose of this statutory, summary procedure, [is] to afford an expeditious and
adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld by tenants”). Defendant contends his defense
is that Plaintiff obtained title unconstitutionally. A defendant generally may not challenge the plaintiff's title as a defense to
the unlawful detainer action. Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a.

3

1

plaintiff's complaint.”). Thus, Defendant fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction despite his

2

argument that he is challenging the Constitutionality of state statutes.

3

2.

4

Federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy

5

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1332. Jurisdiction under Section 1332 requires complete diversity, so each plaintiff must be diverse

7

from each defendant. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2611,

8

162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). In an unlawful detainer action, “the right to possession alone [is] involved-

9

not title to the property.” See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10–05478 PJH, 2011 WL

10

Diversity Jurisdiction

204322, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 2011).

11

Here, Plaintiff does not claim damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount. The Complaint

12

for Unlawful Detainer states that the amount of damages claimed in the action does not exceed

13

$10,000.00, and the relief requested is limited to restitution of the property. Doc. 1, p. 8. As Plaintiff

14

does not claim damages in excess of $75,000, Defendant has the burden of showing that more than

15

$75,000 is in controversy. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996) (A

16

defendant “bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the

17

jurisdictional amount.”)

18
19

Defendant argues that the amount in controversy is the amount of the lien on the property and
not the rental value of the property. The lien approximates $455,000.

20

Here, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In unlawful detainer actions, the

21

right to possession of the property is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiff may collect only

22

damages that are incident to that unlawful possession. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas,

23

2011 WL 204322, at *2 (quoting Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 170 (1977)). The unlawful

24

detainer complaint does not seek anywhere near $75,000. Thus, the amount in controversy fails to

25

establish diversity jurisdiction.

26
27
28
4

Removal “into” a Pre-existing Case

1

3.

2

The Court does not consider any other pending case to determine its jurisdiction in the

3

removed action. Here, upon removal, the Calaveras County unlawful detainer action was improperly

4

incorporated into a pre-existing federal case. The pre-existing federal case was filed on July 10, 2014

5

by Mark Bellinger (plaintiff in the pre-existing case; defendant in the current case) and which is based

6

upon federal question (Bellinger v. Wells Fargo et al., 1:14-cv-1076). After he filed the Bellinger v.

7

Wells Fargo federal question case, Mark Bellinger removed the Calaveras County unlawful detainer

8

“into” the pre-existing federal case (Bellinger v. Wells Fargo et al., 1:14-cv-1076).

9

A removed case cannot be removed “into” a pre-existing case. Local Rule 101(e) provides that

10

a removed action must be initiated as any other newly filed action. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

11

§1441, the Court must assess its subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined,

12

as explained above, by the “well-pleaded complaint” in the removed action. Rivet v. Regions Bank of

13

Louisiana, 522 US 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 925 (1998). Thus, the Court considers the complaint that

14

is removed to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction. “For better or worse ... a defendant may

15

not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case ‘arises

16

under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Board of State of Calif. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust

17

for Southern Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 10, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846 (1983) (emphasis in original). Whether a

18

defendant may rightfully remove a case from a state court to a federal district court is entirely

19

governed by statutory authorization by Congress. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062,

20

1064 (9th Cir.1979). Plaintiff cannot escape the requirements of the well-pleaded complaint rule by

21

incorporating a removed action into a pre-existing case.

22

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER

23

For the reasons discussed above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action,

24

and Defendant has failed to show that removal is proper. Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS

25

this case be REMANDED to the Calaveras County Superior Court; and

26

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

27

pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304.

28

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to
5

1

these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

2

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

3

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the

4

United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

5

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

6

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 2, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6