Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Olis

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/29/2009. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (be, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v. NELSON OLIS, Defendant. /

No. C 09-1791 CRB ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Now pending before the Court is defendant's "Petition for Removal." Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action after it took title to defendant's foreclosed home. Courts in the Ninth Circuit "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. Defendant, as the removing party, bears the burden of establishing that removal was proper. See id. In order for this Court to have federal question jurisdiction of the removed complaint, the face of the complaint must show that federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff's right to relief must necessarily depend on a resolution of a question of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). No such grounds appear from the face of the unlawful detainer complaint. Moreover, "the existence of a defense based on federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction." Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2002). A defendant also cannot

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

make a state law complaint removable by pleading a federal question in a counter-claim. Takeda v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, defendant's contention that his due process rights were violated during the foreclosure does not create federal jurisdiction of plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint. Plaintiff's assertion of diversity jurisdiction also fails. The unlawful detainer complaint seeks damages in the amount of $30.00 per day from February 16, 2009 until defendant vacates the property. Accordingly, the amount in controversy on plaintiff's complaint does not come close to meeting the $75,000.00 threshold for jurisdiction. As the pleadings demonstrate that this Court lacks removal jurisdiction, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2009

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2009\1791\orderofremand.wpd

2