U.S. Bank National Association v. Manibusan et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/2/17: The action is REMANDED to the Placer County Superior Court. Defendant's Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 , 3 are DENIED as moot. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee for structured asset securities corporation mortgage loan trust 2005-OPT1, Mortgage pass through certificates, series 2005-OPT1, 17 18 v. JEFF P. MANIBUSAN, MELINI MANIBUSAN, and DOES 1 through 5, includisve, Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No. 2:17-cv-0225 MCE EFB Plaintiff, 15 16 ORDER On February 2, 2017, Defendants Jeff P. Manibusan and Melini Manibusan, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Placer County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) 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 (citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 2 right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 3 1992). As explained below, Defendant has failed to meet that burden. 4 The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal 5 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. ECF No. 1 at 2. However, a review of the 6 Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, Plaintiff 7 alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 5–6. 8 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 9 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 10 federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 11 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the 12 complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 13 the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of 14 federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage 15 Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 16 v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983)). 17 Here, Plaintiff’s one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At 18 most, Defendants argue that they have a defense under federal law. “A case may not 19 be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 20 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is 21 the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of 22 Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) 23 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 24 U.S.C. § 1331.2 25 Accordingly: 26 2 27 28 Nor has Defendant established that this Court has diversity jurisdiction, since the Notice of Removal does not establish diversity of the parties or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, No. CV 12-01641 GAF (CMx), 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in unlawful detainer actions is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”). 2 1 1. The action is REMANDED to the Placer County Superior Court. 2 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the 3 Clerk of the Placer County Superior Court, and reference the state case 4 number (No. MCV0066598) in the proof of service. 5 6 3. Defendant’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2–3) are DENIED as moot. 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates. 8 5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the 9 10 11 following unlawful detainer action: No. MCV0066598. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 2, 2017 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?