Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Mort

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be remanded to State Court. The matter is referred to U.S. District Judge Nunley. Objections due within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/11/2015. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00370-TLN-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30)
DAYS

14
THEODORE W. MORT,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

On March 9, 2015, Defendant Theodore W. Mort (“Defendant”) filed the notice of
removal in this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Fresno. The original complaint raised a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Defendant.
Defendant removed the action to this Court and contend that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §
1331.

23
24
25
26
27

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that jurisdiction does not exist over this
action and recommends that the action be remanded back to state court.
///
///
///

28

1

1

I.

2

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF
JURISDICTION

3
District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4

5 12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to
1
6 at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion. Lee v. City of Los

7 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d
8 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Moreover, district
9 courts have authority to dismiss actions sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. Franklin v. State of
10 Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). “[F]ederal courts are without
11 power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and
12 unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit” and are “obviously frivolous.” Hagans v.
13 Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
14

II.

15

DISCUSSION
In this case, Plaintiff brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendant under

16

17 California state law. Defendant’s notice of removal contends that federal question jurisdiction
18 exists over this action, but makes no effort to identify any federal issues which arise under
19 Plaintiff’s complaint.
District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

20

21 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The well-pleaded22 complaint rule has long governed whether a case ‘arises under’ federal law for purposes of §
23 1331.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002).
24 “[F]ederal jurisdiction generally exists ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of
25 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
26 386, 392 (1987) (italics in original). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or
27
28

1

Through these Findings and Recommendations, the Court gives Defendant notice of its intention to remand.
Defendant has an opportunity to submit a written memorandum in opposition by filing objections to these Findings
and Recommendations.

2

1 she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”

Caterpillar Inc. v.

2 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Moreover, “[i]t is a ‘long-settled understanding that the
3 mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal4 question jurisdiction.’” Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1040
5 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808
6 (1986)).
7

Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer is devoid of any federal issues. See First

8 Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, No. 2:11-cv-02976 MCE KJN PS, 2011 WL 6328713, at
9 *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (“Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a
10 federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal
11 question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that
12 jurisdiction does not exist over this action and the action should be remanded back to state court.
13

III.

14

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

15

The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

16 RECOMMENDED that this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the
17 County of Fresno.
18

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

19 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
20 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings
21 and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
22 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district
23 judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
24 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

3

1 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
2 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated:

March 11, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

4