Ing Bank, FSB v. Pineda et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 10 Motion to Remand. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-02418 CRB

ING BANK, FSB,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL R. PINEDA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Defendants Raul R. Pineda and Graciela Pineda removed this case from state court on

18

May 14, 2012. See dkt. 1. Magistrate Judge James issued an Order to Show Cause why the

19

case should not be remanded on March 15, 2012. Dkt. 5. The case was reassigned on May

20

18, 2012. See dkt. 9. The Court notes that a Motion to Remand is already on file, and is

21

calendared for June 29, 2012. See dkt. 10. However, the Court finds this matter suitable for

22

resolution without oral argument or further briefing, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and

23

GRANTS the Motion to Remand.

24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which

25

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

26

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and

27

division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a

28

district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds

1

$75,00.00. The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking

2

removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus

3

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).

4

Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

5

removal in the first instance.” Id. at 566. Further, a district court must remand the case to

6

state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the district court lacks subject

7

matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

8

Upon review of the state court complaint attached to the Notice of Removal, it is

9

apparent to the Court that, indeed, it does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Federal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-pleaded

11

complaint. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).

12

The state court complaint here involves only a claim of unlawful detainer. Notice of

13

Removal Ex. 2. Therefore, no federal question is presented. See Wells Fargo Bank v.

14

Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v.

15

Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, based upon the face

16

of the well-pleaded complaint, which alleges that the amount in controversy is “under

17

$2,500,” and indicates that Defendant is what is known as a local defendant (residing in the

18

State in which this action has been brought), there is also no diversity jurisdiction. See

19

Notice of Removal Ex. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

20

this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda is

21

GRANTED.

22

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), an order remanding a case may require payment of

23

“just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal.”

24

Plaintiff argues it has incurred fees and costs totaling $2,018.00 in connection with the

25

Motion to Remand and the accompanying ex parte application, and requests an award of fees

26

in this amount.

27
28

“[A]bsent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the
removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital
2

1

Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005). “The appropriate test for awarding fees under § 1447(c)

2

should recognize the desire to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation

3

and imposing costs on the opposing party, while not undermining Congress’s basic decision

4

to afford Defendants a right to remove as a general matter, when the statutory criteria are

5

satisfied.” Id. at 140. In this case, there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

6

Clearly established state and federal law unequivocally prohibit removal under the

7

circumstances of this case, as discussed above. Thus, the Court finds there was not an

8

objectively reasonable basis for removal. Moreover, Magistrate Judge James set out this law

9

in her Order to Show Cause, to which Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff’s counsel

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

includes in his fee calculation time for responding to an opposition and attending the hearing.

11

These costs are inapplicable given this Court’s present order. Thus, the Court has subtracted

12

the time counsel had allotted for those activities from the fee award. The Court GRANTS

13

Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of

14

$1,073.00.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 8, 2012

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\2418\Order Remanding Case.wpd

3