Bank of America, N.A. v. Amil et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/25/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

Download PDF
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 13 14 15 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FOR THE BENEFIT OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-1 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, 16 17 18 19 20 No. C 12-05522 RS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION Plaintiff, v. ANDRES M. AMIL, II, DIANE D. AMIL., Defendants. ____________________________________/ 21 This matter was filed as an unlawful detainer in Contra Costa Superior Court. Appearing in 22 pro se, defendant Andres Amil filed a notice of removal, asserting a right to do so on the basis of 23 both diversity of citizenship and purported federal questions. Upon removal, the action was 24 randomly assigned to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a Report and 25 Recommendation that the matter be remanded to state court for lack of a jurisdictional basis to 26 support the removal. The matter was then reassigned to the undersigned for disposition. 27 28 1 The time for objecting to the Report and Recommendation has expired and no objections 2 have been filed. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, removal jurisdiction 3 based on federal question is absent. As further explained in the Report and Recommendation, 4 courts have held that the “amount in controversy” in unlawful detainer actions is only the damages 5 incident to the alleged wrongful possession, and under that analysis, the $75,000 minimum 6 threshold is not satisfied here. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 7 2011 WL 204322, at*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 8 162, 170 (1977)). 9 Moreover, even assuming the value of the real property should be considered in determining the amount in controversy, defendants are citizens of California and therefore are not entitled to 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 removal on diversity grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). (A civil action “removable solely on the 12 basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in 13 interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such 14 action is brought.”) Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 Dated: 3/25/13 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 3 4 Andres M. Amil, II 5 103 Ellison Lane 6 Richmond, CA 94801 7 8 DATED: 3/25/13 9 /s/ Chambers Staff 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 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?