Bank of New York Mellon v. Guevara-Martinez

Filing 4

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/17/2012. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

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

No. C 12-03674 CRB

THE BANK OF NEW YORK,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS GUEVARA-MARTINEZ,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17

Defendant Luis Guevara-Martinez removed this case from state court on July 12,

18

2012. See dkt. 1. Upon review of the state court complaint attached to the Notice of

19

Removal, see dkt. 1 Ex. A, it is apparent to the Court that it does not have jurisdiction over

20

this case.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of

26

different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds

27

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

28

removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Removal Ex. A at 3. Therefore, no federal question is presented. See Wells Fargo Bank v.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

$10,000,” and indicates that Defendant is what is known as a local defendant (residing in the

15

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

16

Notice of Removal Ex. A at 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this

17

matter to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 17, 2012

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2012\3674\Order Remanding Case.wpd

2