California Housing Finance Agency v. Browning et al

Filing 20

ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Remand.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof 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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CALIFORNIA HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY,
Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 12-00105 WHA

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
v.

15

CECIL DARYL BROWNING, VICKIE
LYNN BROWNING, and DAVID
HERRERA,

16

Defendants.

14

/

17
18

On January 5, 2012, pro se defendant David Herrera removed this unlawful detainer

19

action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The complaint alleges a

20

violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a. There is no question of federal

21

law. Plaintiff California Housing Finance Agency filed a motion to remand on March 29, 2012.

22

No opposition was filed by defendants. On April 13, 2012, an order to show cause issued,

23

stating the motion to remand may be granted if no opposition was filed. Defendants failed to

24

respond to the order to show cause. A case management conference was scheduled for April 5,

25

2012. No one appeared except a substitute attorney for plaintiff’s attorney. An order to show

26

cause issued ordering defendants to appear for a hearing on May 3, 2012 to show cause why they

27

should not be held in contempt for failing to attend the conference. That same order continued

28

the case management conference to May 3. No one appeared for the case management
conference set for May 3.

1

“Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Home

2

Loans Servicing , LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants have failed to oppose the

3

motion to remand and show that removal of this unlawful detainer action is proper. The motion

4

to remand the action to state court is GRANTED. The Clerk shall remand this action to the

5

Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa.

filing the motion to remand in the amount of $2,000. Defendants are all proceeding pro se and

8

defendant David Herrera has been granted in forma pauperis status. While the delay in the case

9

due to the pending motion to remand is regrettable, no attorney’s fees will be awarded against

10

our pro se defendants, at least one of whom is indigent. Moreover, plaintiff’s attorney failed to

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff California Housing Finance Agency seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in

7

United States District Court

6

attend both the initial and rescheduled case management conference. The request for attorney’s

12

fees is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: May 4, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2