U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Walden et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 07/14/16 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to Eldorado County Superior Court (No. PCU20160109); defendants' 2 Motions to Proceed IFP are DENIED as moot; Clerk is ordered NOT TO OPEN another case removing the following unlawful detainer action: No. PCU20160109. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee
for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, its
assignees and/or successors,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01599-MCE-AC-PS

ORDER

v.
MARTIN L. WALDEN, CATHERINE
HOHN-WALDEN, and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
19

On July 13, 2016, Defendants MARTIN L. WALDEN and CATHERINE HOHN-

20

WALDEN (“Defendants”), proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful

21

detainer action filed by Plaintiff U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master

22

Participation Trust (“Plaintiff”) from the El Dorado County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1.

23

This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua

24

sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of

25

establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute

26

is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846

27
1

28

Despite Defendant’s pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to
a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21).

1

1

F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be

2

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.

3

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendants have

4

failed to meet that burden.

5

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal

6

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1443. However, a review

7

of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, it

8

alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 23-26.

9

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

10

pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a

11

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

12

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the

13

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2]

14

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of

15

federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage

16

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.

17

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

18

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most,

19

Defendants argues that they have defenses available under federal law. “A case may

20

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense

21

is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense

22

is the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t.

23

of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000)

24

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28

25

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1443.

26

Accordingly:

27

1. The action is REMANDED to the El Dorado County Superior Court.

28

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the
2

1

Clerk of the El Dorado County Superior Court, and reference the state case

2

number (No. PCU20160109) in the proof of service.

3
4

3. Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED
as moot.

5

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

6

5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the

7
8
9

following unlawful detainer action: No. PCU20160109.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2016

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3