Murphy v. Norman

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/16/16 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court on the court's own motion. The 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDRA L. MURPHY,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:16-cv-01893-KJM-EFB
ORDER

v.
SPENCER NORMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
In July, plaintiff Sandra Murphy filed an unlawful detainer action in Sacramento

18
19

County Superior Court against defendant Spencer Norman. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Mr.

20

Norman removed the case to this court on August 11, 2016. Id. To establish this court’s

21

jurisdiction, he relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, defining this court’s jurisdiction to address claims

22

under federal law, and 12 U.S.C. § 5220, a provision of the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure

23

Act of 2009.”

24

A defendant may remove an action filed in state court to the federal district court

25

embracing the same location if the district court has original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1441(a). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject

27

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

28
1

1

Like most unlawful detainer actions, this case raises questions of only California

2

law. See PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ahluwalia, No. 15-01264, 2015 WL 3866892, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

3

June 22, 2015) (collecting authority). Mr. Norman cannot rely on anticipated federal defenses or

4

counterclaims to establish this court’s jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60

5

(2009); Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1,10 (1983). The

6

court also disagrees that the federal statutes he cites allow removal. See Not. Removal ¶¶ 8–14.

7

Specifically, defendant’s anticipated reliance on 12 U.S.C. § 5220 cannot support the removal of

8

an unlawful detainer action from state court. See, e.g., Edwards v. Clark, No. 16-0147, 2016 WL

9

690920, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016); Fairview Tasman LLC v. Young, No. 15-05493, 2016

10
11
12
13
14

WL 199060, at *1–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2016).
This action is remanded to state court on the court’s own motion. The motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 16, 2016.

15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2