Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Aguirre et al
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/7/2011 recommending that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer and that this case be closed; 1 Notice of Removal referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
DEUTSCHE BANK,
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
11
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-2839 JAM DAD PS
12
vs.
13
14
FRANK ANTHONY AGUIRRE, JR.;
CINDY LYNN AGUIRRE,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
/
17
By Notice of Removal filed October 27, 2011, this unlawful detainer action was
18
removed from the Placer County Superior Court by defendants Frank Aguirre, Jr and Cindy
19
Aguirre, who are proceeding pro se.1 Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the
20
undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
21
It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be
22
“strictly construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064
23
(9th Cir. 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). See also
24
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque v.
25
26
1
Defendants have neither paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
1
1
Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
2
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
3
564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party
4
invoking removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.
5
1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). See also
6
Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. Moreover, “the existence of federal
7
jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to
8
those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d
9
1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks subject
10
11
matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In this case, defendants allege in conclusory fashion that “federal question
12
jurisdiction exists because defendants’ demurrer, a pleading, depend (sic) on the determination of
13
defendants’ rights and plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at
14
3.) In this regard, defendants argue that the Placer County Superior Court “did not sustain”
15
defendants’ demurrer, despite plaintiff’s violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Id.)
16
It is evident however from a reading of plaintiff’s complaint that plaintiff’s action
17
is nothing more than a garden-variety unlawful detainer action filed against the former owner of
18
real property located in California and is based wholly on California law. As such, the complaint
19
does not involve any “claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United
20
States” that would have permitted plaintiff to file this action originally in federal court. See 28
21
U.S.C. § 1441(b). Moreover, it is evident from defendants’ argument that any federal claims in
22
this action arise solely from defendants’ own affirmative defenses and not from the plaintiff’s
23
unlawful detainer complaint. Thus, defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing a
24
basis for federal jurisdiction.
25
26
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to
the Superior Court of California, County of Placer and that this case be closed.
2
1
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
2
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
3
fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
4
written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document presenting
5
objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
6
Any reply to objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections.
7
DATED: November 7, 2011.
8
9
10
11
12
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.prose\deutschebank-aguirre2839.f&r.remand.ud
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?