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)
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?