Bank of America , N.A. v. Lozada

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/18/2012. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. C 12-3565 CRB

BANK OF AMERICA,

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
RUBY LOZADA,
Defendant.

/

Defendant Ruby Lozada has filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

17

(“IFP”). See dkt. 2. The Court finds that Defendant is unable to pay the Court’s filing fee,

18

and therefore GRANTS Defendant’s IFP application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

19

The Court next turns to the question of this case’s removal. Defendant removed this

20

case from state court on July 6, 2012. See dkt. 1. Plaintiff has already filed a Motion to

21

Remand, see dkt. 5, dkt. 11, but the Court finds this matter is suitable for resolution without

22

oral argument or further briefing, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Because this case

23

does not involve any federal claims, the Court REMANDS it to state court.

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. § 1331, a

28

district court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

1

laws, or treaties of the United States.” The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction

2

exists is on the party seeking removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against

3

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

4

citations omitted). Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

5

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

6

the case to state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the district court

7

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

8

Defendant asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because “Defendant
strongly believes she has been discriminated [sic] and that the Plaintiff has violated federal

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

law, by doing so.” See dkt. 1 at 1-2. But Defendant’s anticipated federal defense does not

11

give this Court jurisdiction. See Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267, 1274

12

(9th Cir. 1982) (“That anticipated federal defenses do not suffice to establish federal question

13

jurisdiction is a principle too well-established in this circuit to merit discussion.”). Federal

14

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

15

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

16

The state court complaint here involves only a claim of unlawful detainer. See dkt. 1 Ex. A

17

(“Complaint for Unlawful Detainer”). Therefore, no federal question is presented. See

18

Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. 11-01932, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6,

19

2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-8203, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

20

Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, because Defendant appears to be what is known as a local

21

defendant (residing in the State in which this action has been brought), there is also no

22

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

23
24
25

Accordingly, the Case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Solano.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 18, 2012

28

G:\CRBALL\2012\3565\order remanding.wpd

2