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