Federal Home Loan and Mortgage Corporation v. Whitesel et al

Filing 18

ORDER REMANDING ACTION, Order by Hon. William Alsup granting 12 Motion to Remand.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

FEDERAL HOME LOAN AND
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
v.
RONALD D. WHITESEL and
THERESA J. TAYLOR,
Defendants.
/

16
17

No. C 11-03737 WHA

Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action in March 2011, in the Superior Court for the

18

State of California in and for the County of Lake (Dkt. No. 1 at 5). In July 2011, defendants

19

removed the action to this district court, citing federal-question jurisdiction as the supposed basis

20

for removal (Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3). In October 2011, defendants failed to oppose plaintiff’s motion

21

to remand the action and thereafter were ordered to show cause why this action should not be

22

remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants were warned that if they did not file a response or

23

if their response failed to establish jurisdiction, then the action might be remanded to the court

24

from which it was removed (Dkt. No. 16). The deadline for filing a response was November 1;

25

no filing was made. Defendants also failed to appear at the November 3 initial case

26

management conference.

27
28

“[T]he defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, defendants’ notice of removal asserted

1

federal-question jurisdiction under two theories. Neither was valid. First, the removal notice

2

stated that “[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” It did not, however, elaborate on this

3

theory or identify any such issue (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). The complaint asserted only one cause of

4

action — unlawful detainer. As such, it “presents no federal question.” Fort Mojave Tribe v.

5

Lafollete, 478 F.2d 1016, 1018 n.3 (9th Cir. 1973). Second, the removal notice asserted that

6

“[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ demurrer, a pleading, Depend [sic] on

7

the determination of Defendants’ rights and the Planiff’s [sic] duties under federal law”

8

(Dkt. No. 1 at 3). Federal question jurisdiction may arise only from the face of the complaint, not

9

from any responsive pleading. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

demurrer cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.
Although this action was removed on the supposed basis of federal-question jurisdiction,

12

defendants have not met their burden of showing that federal-question jurisdiction exists.

13

Defendants also have not established diversity jurisdiction, because the amount-in-controversy

14

requirement is not met (see Dkt. No. 1 at 5). See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Because defendants have

15

failed to establish federal jurisdiction, this action is REMANDED to the state court in which it was

16

filed. The Clerk SHALL FORWARD THE FILE to the Superior Court for the State of California in

17

and for the County of Lake

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: November 3, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2