Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Riley et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 06/13/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 4 Motion to Remand is GRANTED; case is REMANDED to Siskiyou County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE
FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2004-4,

No. 2:12-cv-0761-MCE-JFM

13
Plaintiff,
14
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

15
16

PHILIP RILEY, RICHARD BURILL,
JOYCE WILSON, GLEN KUDER; and
DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

17
Defendant.
18
----oo0oo---19
20

Plaintiff Deutsch Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

21

for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-4 (“Plaintiff”), filed

22

this unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of the State

23

of California, County of Siskiyou, Yreka Branch, on February 21,

24

2012.

25

(“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court, allegedly

26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

27

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”).

28

///

On or about March 26, 2012, Defendant Glenn Michael Kuder

Presently before the Court is

1

1

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.1

2
BACKGROUND

3
4
5

Defendant owned certain real property located at 642 Main

6

Street in Etna, Siskiyou County, California.

After Defendant

7

defaulted on the note and deed of trust which encumbered that

8

property, Plaintiff purchased the premises at a non-judicial

9

foreclosure sale held on February 23, 2009.

On February 27,

10

2009, title pursuant to the sale was perfected in Plaintiff by

11

the recording of a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale in the official

12

records of Siskiyou County.

13

November 14, 2011, a written notice to quit and deliver up

14

possession to Defendant, along with others who purported to

15

possess an interest in the property.

16

relinquish possession of the premises within 60 days after

17

service of the notice to quit, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for

18

Unlawful Detainer on February 21, 2012 in the Yreka Branch of the

19

Superior Court of California, County of Siskiyou.

20

alleges that Defendant, among others, continues to remain in

21

possession of the property without Plaintiff’s permission or

22

consent.

23

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a, which governs the possession of

24

residential real property after sale or foreclosure of such

25

property.

Plaintiff subsequently served, on

When Defendant failed to

That Complaint

The Complaint is made in accordance with California

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.
Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
2

1

See Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, Siskiyou County (Yreka

2

Branch) Limited Civil Case No. 12-00224, attached as Ex. A to the

3

Decl. Of Richard Sontag.

4

Detainer states plainly in the Caption that the “Amount Demanded

5

Does Not Exceed $10,000".

6

to remove Plaintiff’s Complaint for Unlawful Detainer to this

7

Court on March 26, 2012, citing both diversity jurisdiction as

8

well as jurisdiction founded on a federal question.

9

latter claim, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint

10

implicates federal securities laws that must necessarily be

11

litigated in federal court.

12

Plaintiff seeks an order of remand.

13

Motion will be granted.

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Unlawful

Id.

Defendant nonetheless proceeded

As to the

Through the present Motion,
As set forth below, that

14
STANDARD

15
16
17

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to

18

federal district court if the district court has “original

19

jurisdiction” over the matter.

20

district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in

21

two instances: (1) where there is complete diversity between the

22

parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; or (2)

23

where a federal question is presented in an action arising under

24

the Constitution, federal law, or treaty.

25

1332.

26

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Generally,

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

Courts construe the removal statute strictly against

27

removal.

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)

28

(citations omitted).
3

1

Therefore, if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

2

the first instance, remand must be granted.

3

Furthermore, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears

4

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

5

case shall be remanded” to state court as well.

6

1447(c).

See id.

28 U.S.C. §

7
ANALYSIS

8
9
10

Defendant contends removal is proper here under the Court’s

11

diversity jurisdiction.

According to Defendant, the amount in

12

controversy is met because the value of the real property

13

underlying the unlawful detainer action exceeds that amount.

14

Def.’s Opp’n, 3:10-13.

15

above,

16

seeks no more than $10,000 in damages.

17

actions contest the right to possession of the property, not

18

title to the property, the actual amount in controversy here is

19

comprised primarily of holdover damages.

20

Ass’n v. Lofton, 2011 WL 3739547, *3 (N.D. Cal.).

21

in the instant matter are estimated at some $50.00 per day from

22

January 16, 2012 and continuing for each day that Defendant

23

continues in possession of the property through.

24

well under $5,000.00 at the time this matter was removed on March

25

26, 2012.

26

not been met.

27

///

28

///

Defendant is wrong.

See

First, as indicated

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Unlawful Detainer expressly
Because unlawful detainer

See Federal Nat. Mortg.
Those damages

That figure was

Accordingly, the amount in controversy requirement has

4

1

Moreover, even if Defendant was correct as to the amount in

2

controversy, which he is not, as a local defendant he is

3

precluded from removing the instant action to this Court on

4

diversity grounds.

5

to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction are “removable only if none

6

of the parties in interest properly joined and served as

7

defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is

8

brought.”).

9

well.

10

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (Actions removed pursuant

Remand is therefore required for that reason as

Finally, with respect to Defendant’s argument that this case

11

implicates a federal question and can also be removed on that

12

basis, Plaintiff’s Complaint shows plainly on its face that it is

13

nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action.

14

has no jurisdiction over such actions, which are solely within

15

the province of the state court.

16

to argue various securities laws as a defense to the unlawful

17

detainer does not change the analysis because defenses and

18

counterclaims cannot provide a sufficient basis to remove an

19

action to federal claim.

20

(9th Cir. 1994); FIA Card Servs. v. McComas, 2010 WL 4974113

21

(S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) (remanding action removed by defendant

22

on the basis that defendant’s counterclaim raised a federal

23

question).

24

only if the action originally could have been filed in federal

25

court.

26

///

27

///

28

///

This court

The fact that Defendant appears

See Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426

Instead, removal of a state court action is proper

28 U.S.C. § 1441.

5

1

“[F]ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear, originally or by

2

removal, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint

3

establishes either that federal law creates the casuse of action,

4

or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on

5

resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

6

Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,

7

27-28 (1983).

8

detainer action is expressly grounded on California statutory

9

authority, has nothing to do with federal law, and could not have

10

Franchise

Here, as already indicated, the present unlawful

been brought in federal court.

11
CONCLUSION

12
13
14

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

15

(ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.

16

remand this case to the originating state court, the Superior

17

Court of the State of California in and for the County of

18

Siskiyou, for final adjudication.

19

close the case in this Court.

20
21

The Clerk of the Court is directed to

The Clerk shall thereafter

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2012

22
23
24

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
6