US Bank National Association, v. Sosa
Filing
3
ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to Assign a United States District Judge to the Action; New Case No. 1:15-cv-00443 AWI JLT; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Remanding the Matter to Kern County Superior Court for Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/15: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SANDRA SOSA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00443 - --- - JLT
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE
ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
17
18
Sandra Sosa seeks the removal of the unlawful detainer action initiated in Kern County
19
Superior Court by U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. S-1500-CL-289060.1 (Doc. 1 at 1-2, 5.)
20
Because an action for unlawful detainer arises under California law, the Court lacks subject matter
21
jurisdiction over the complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends the action be REMANDED to
22
Kern County Superior Court.
23
I.
24
Removal Jurisdiction
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court
25
26
27
28
1
The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333
(9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of
court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp.,
80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887
F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore,
judicial notice is taken of the docket and complaint filed in Case No. S-1500-CL-289060.
1
1
where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286,
2
392 (1987). Specifically,
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.
3
4
5
6
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
7
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331.
8
9
A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of
receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed,
10
and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles,
11
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its
12
propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d
13
676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the
14
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt
15
as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.
16
The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action
17
sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell &
18
Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v.
19
Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural
20
and jurisdictional defects and holding that a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus,
21
the Sixth Circuit explained that a court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it
22
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of
23
Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).
24
II.
Discussion and Analysis
25
Defendant Sandra Sosa asserts that this court has original jurisdiction over the complaint
26
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is
27
governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
28
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
2
1
Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Therefore, the complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law
2
creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of
3
a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas
4
Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v.
5
Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).
Significantly, the only cause of action identified by the plaintiff in the complaint is unlawful
6
7
detainer. (See Doc. 1 at 9-11.) An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law, but arises
8
instead under state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal.
9
July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”); Deutsche
10
Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“the
11
complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state
12
law”). Thus, the plaintiff has not raised a claim that invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction.
13
Nevertheless, Ms. Sosa seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction because she claims the plaintiff
14
violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 by providing insufficient notice prior to
15
initiating eviction proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). However, claims regarding the Protecting Tenants at
16
Foreclosure Act “are best characterized as defenses or potential counterclaims; neither of which are
17
considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint. First
18
Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145066, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Dec.16,
19
2011) (citing Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Moreover, “federal district courts
20
have held that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not create a federal private right of
21
action.” Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129905, at *7, n. 3 (E.D. Cal.,
22
Nov. 9, 2011). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action based upon
23
Defendant’s claim that the plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.
24
III.
25
Conclusion
Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise
26
jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
27
1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
28
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).
3
Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District
1
2
Judge to this action
3
IV.
Findings and Recommendations
4
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENED:
5
1.
The matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kern County; and
6
2.
The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.
7
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
8
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
9
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days
10
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections
11
with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
12
Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
13
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 25, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?