Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Menis et al

Filing 6

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to Assign a United States District Judge to the Action; New Case No. 1:15-cv-00444 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

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

KENNETH MENIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00444 - --- - 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
Defendants Kenneth Menis and Mary Menis seek the removal of the unlawful detainer action

18
19

initiated by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. S-1500-CL-288527.1

20

(Doc. 1 at 1-2, 5.) Because an action for unlawful detainer arises under California law, the Court lacks

21

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends the action be

22

REMANDED to 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-288527.

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

The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint

26

rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the

27

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Therefore, the

28

complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s
2

1

right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston

2

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

3

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

4

(1983)).
Although Defendants argue the plaintiff raised a federal cause of action in the complaint, the

5
6

only cause of action is for unlawful detainer. (See Doc. 1 at 9.) Significantly, an unlawful detainer

7

action does not arise under federal law, but arises instead under state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez,

8

2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly

9

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

10

LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful

11

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law”). Thus, because the only claim

12

appearing on the face of the complaint is unlawful detainer, the plaintiff has not raised a claim that

13

invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction.
In addition, Defendants seek to invoke federal jurisdiction because they claim the plaintiff

14
15

violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 by giving insufficient notice prior to filing

16

the eviction proceeding. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). However, claims arising under the Protecting Tenants at

17

Foreclosure Act are “best characterized as defenses or potential counterclaims; neither of which are

18

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint. First

19

Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145066, at *11-12 (E.D. Cal. Dec.16,

20

2011) (citing Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Moreover, “federal district courts

21

have held that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not create a federal private right of

22

action.” Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129905, at *7, n. 3 (E.D. Cal.,

23

Nov. 9, 2011). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action based upon

24

Defendants’ claim that the plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.

25

III.

26

Conclusion
Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise

27

jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. §

28

1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
3

1

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).
Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District

2
3

Judge to this action

4

IV.

Findings and Recommendations

5

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENED:

6

1.

The matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kern County; and

7

2.

The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

8

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

9

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

10

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days

11

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections

12

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

13

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

14

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4