RJ Dublin, LLC v. Saffas
Filing
23
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/6/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
RJ DUBLIN LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
GEORGE A. SAFFAS,
15
No. C 12-4205 RS
ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT
BE REMANDED
Defendant.
____________________________________/
16
17
This action was initiated as an unlawful detainer in Alameda Superior Court. Plaintiff seeks
18
possession of real property it purchased at a foreclosure sale. Appearing in pro se, defendant
19
George A. Saffas removed the matter to this Court, asserting that “removal is proper based on
20
federal question.” Notwithstanding the delay a removal can cause, and the manifest lack of a
21
tenable basis for the removal, plaintiff inexplicably has failed to move for remand. Nevertheless,
22
even where the propriety of removal is not contested, “federal courts are under an independent
23
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction.” Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342
24
(9th Cir. 1996) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 229 (1990)).
25
Although the notice of removal is not entirely clear, it appears Saffas contends the
26
underlying loan transaction and/or subsequent foreclosure violated one or more provisions of federal
27
law. Such matters, however, would at most be potential defenses to plaintiff’s claim. The existence
28
of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Holmes Group,
1
Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002).1 Under that rule, a federal
2
question must be presented by what is or should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. The fact
3
that a federal question may be implicated by matters raised in an answer or counterclaim is
4
insufficient. Id. at 831. Here, plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint is premised solely on state law
5
and no basis for federal jurisdiction appears.
6
Accordingly, the Case Management Conference set for February 7, 2013 is vacated. No
7
later than February 21, 2013, defendant shall file a brief, not exceeding 10 pages, setting out any
8
arguments he may have as to why this action should not be remanded to Alameda Superior Court for
9
lack of jurisdiction. In the event defendant does not respond, the case will be remanded without
further notice.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: 2/6/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
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
2
1
2
3
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:
George A. Saffas
22568 Mission Boulevard, #429
Hayward, CA 94541
4
5
6
7
8
Edward Alexander Nagy
Attorney at Law
510 3rd Street, Suite 101
Oakland, CA 94607
DATED: 2/6/13
9
/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?