Bank of America, N.A. v. Lozada

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/9/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
BANK OF AMERICA,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13

No. C 12-06023 JSW

v.
RUBY LOZADA,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND
REMANDING ACTION

Defendant.
/

14
15

On November 27, 2012, Defendant Ruby Lozada, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of

16

removal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Without consent, on March 11, 2013,

17

this matter was reassigned to the undersigned from Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James with a

18

Report and Recommendation to remand this action. The undersigned has received no

19

objections. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court HEREBY

20

REMANDS this action to the Solano County Superior Court.

21

On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in Solano County

22

Superior Court against Defendant (the “State Court action”). (See Notice of Removal.)

23

Defendant removed the State Court action on the basis that jurisdiction is premised upon a

24

federal question. (See Notice of Removal.) “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of

25

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

26

defendant ... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

27

place where such action is pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,

28

463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

1

However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.

2

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, the burden of

3

establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and

4

the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

5

372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

6

1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

7

the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

8

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

pleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or

11
For the Northern District of California

pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-

10

United States District Court

9

she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the

12

well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint

13

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

14

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd.,

15

463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).

16

The State Court action is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law does not

17

create the cause of action. Moreover, the Court concludes that the claim will not necessarily

18

depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiff need not

19

prove compliance with the federal law relied upon by Defendant to establish its claim. See, e.g.,

20

Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005). The Court

21

also finds there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction as the amount in controversy does not meet

22

the jurisdictional threshold. See Cal. Civ. Pro. § 86(a)(4); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

23

Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the

24

complaint gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question,

25

even if the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463

26

U.S. at 10, 14; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not

27

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-

28

emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties
2

1

concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original).

2

Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter and must

3

remand to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782,

4

785 (9th Cir. 1992).

5

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and REMANDS this

6

case to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano. The Clerk shall

7

transfer the file forthwith.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: April 9, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
BANK OF AMERICA,

Case Number: CV12-06023 JSW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7
v.
8
RUBY LOZADA et al,
9
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on April 9, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
15
16

Ruby Lozada
17 4941 Paramont Way
Fairfield, CA 94534
18
Dated: April 9, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk