Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Fuentes et al

Filing 15

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 5, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-05130 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT

ALBERTO B. FUENTES, HELEN
BUSTAMONTE, and JIMMY LOPEZ,
Defendants.
/

16
17

On October 19, 2011, defendants Jimmy Lopez and Helen Bustamonte removed this

18

action from the Superior Court of Placer County to federal district court based on federal-question

19

jurisdiction. The complaint contains a single claim for unlawful detainer and states that the

20

amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000 (Dkt. No. 1 at 10).

21

On December12, 2011, an order to show cause issued requiring defendants to file a

22

written response by January 3, 2012, to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state

23

court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 11). Defendants did not respond to the

24

order to show cause.

25

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original

26

jurisdiction would have existed at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).

27

“[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans

28

Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all

1

doubts as to removability in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

2

1992). The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal.

3

Id. at 566–67.

4

Defendants assert federal-question jurisdiction as the basis of removal. “The district

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 1331. The complaint does not contain any federal

7

claims. The complaint contains a single claim for unlawful detainer based on California Code of

8

Civil Procedure Section 1161a. And an anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer

9

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S.

10

1, 10 (1983). Thus, there is no basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Given that the amount in

11
For the Northern District of California

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

6

United States District Court

5

controversy does not exceed $10,000 there is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction, had

12

defendants removed on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. 1332.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Placer
County.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 5, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-05130 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT

ALBERTO B. FUENTES, HELEN
BUSTAMONTE, and JIMMY LOPEZ,
Defendants.
/

16
17

On October 19, 2011, defendants Jimmy Lopez and Helen Bustamonte removed this

18

action from the Superior Court of Placer County to federal district court based on federal-question

19

jurisdiction. The complaint contains a single claim for unlawful detainer and states that the

20

amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000 (Dkt. No. 1 at 10).

21

On December12, 2011, an order to show cause issued requiring defendants to file a

22

written response by January 3, 2012, to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state

23

court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 11). Defendants did not respond to the

24

order to show cause.

25

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original

26

jurisdiction would have existed at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).

27

“[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans

28

Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all

1

doubts as to removability in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

2

1992). The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal.

3

Id. at 566–67.

4

Defendants assert federal-question jurisdiction as the basis of removal. “The district

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 1331. The complaint does not contain any federal

7

claims. The complaint contains a single claim for unlawful detainer based on California Code of

8

Civil Procedure Section 1161a. And an anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer

9

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S.

10

1, 10 (1983). Thus, there is no basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Given that the amount in

11
For the Northern District of California

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

6

United States District Court

5

controversy does not exceed $10,000 there is also no basis for diversity jurisdiction, had

12

defendants removed on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. 1332.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Placer
County.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 5, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2