Gross Mortgage Corporation v. Al-Mansur

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/21/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2012)

**E-filed 3/21/12**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13

GROSS MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

14

v.

No. C 12-0650 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

15
16

SABIR JAMIL AL-MANSUR, also known
as RONALD M. POOLE,

17

Defendant.

18
19

____________________________________/
This action was initiated as an unlawful detainer in the limited jurisdiction division of the

20
21

Alameda Superior Court, as Case No. RG 116103380.1 Plaintiff seeks possession of real property it

22

purchased at a foreclosure sale. Appearing in pro se, defendant Sabir Jamil al-Mansur, also known

23

as Ronald M. Poole, removed the matter to this Court, asserting that “the complaint presents federal

24

questions” and that a demurrer he filed raised questions of the parties’ respective rights and duties

25

under federal law. Plaintiff moves to remand, contending that there is no basis for federal

26
27
28

1

Defendant also attached to his notice of removal certain pleadings from another action between
the parties, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG1160224. While his purpose in doing so is
unclear, there is no dispute that the notice of removal applied to Case No. RG 116103380.

1

jurisdiction. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral

2

argument, and the hearing set for April 5, 2012 is vacated.

3

The motion to remand is granted. Defendant contends the Court has federal question

4

jurisdiction based on the matters he first raised by demurrer in state court and has since pleaded in a

5

counterclaim filed here. The existence of federal question jurisdiction, however, is governed by the

6

“well-pleaded complaint rule.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535

7

U.S. 826, 830 (2002).2 Under that rule, a federal question must be presented by what is or should

8

have been alleged in the complaint. Id. The fact that a federal question may be implicated by

9

matters raised in an answer (or demurrer) or counterclaim is insufficient. Id. at 831.3 Defendant’s
conclusory assertion in his notice of removal that the complaint presents federal questions is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

unfounded. The complaint merely seeks possession, restitution, and damages under the provisions

12

of California state law applicable to unlawful detainer actions.
Defendant’s alternative argument that removal was proper based on diversity of citizenship

13
14

between the parties also fails. Even assuming the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied,

15

there is no dispute that defendant is a citizen and resident of California. The removal therefore

16

contravenes the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) that precludes removal where any defendant is a

17

citizen of the state in which the action was brought (the “no local defendant rule”). While removal

18

in violation of the no local defendant rule can be waived by a plaintiff’s failure to seek remand, here

19

plaintiff filed a timely remand motion.
Accordingly, there is no basis for jurisdiction in this forum. The action is hereby remanded

20
21

to Alameda Superior Court. Defendant’s application for in forma pauperis status is denied as moot,

22

and the Clerk shall close this file.

23

2

24

The rule applies equally to evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially
in this court and in removed cases. Id. at n. 2

25

3

26
27
28

Defendant is correct that a federal court may have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
where there is a sufficient relationship to the federal claims. There must be a basis for asserting
jurisdiction over the federal claims in the first instance, however. Defendant is also correct that
neither the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, nor the Anti-Injunction Act, both of which plaintiff cite in its
remand motion, have any applicability here. Defendant is attempting to remove a state court
proceeding to this forum, not attack a state court judgment or enjoin a state court action.
Nevertheless, the mere inapplicability of those rules does not create a basis for jurisdiction.
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: 3/21/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

3

Sabir Jamil Al-Mansur
2419 Market Street
Oakland, CA 94607

4

DATED: 3/21/12

2

5
6

/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4