Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Chavez et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING ACTION (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG
BEACH MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-WL3,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-06235 WHA

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

v.
ANGEL CHAVEZ and ADRIANA
CHAVEZ, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
/

14
15

On May 7, 2012, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed an unlawful

16

detainer action in Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus to obtain possession of

17

residential real property (Case No. 675145). The complaint alleged that defendant owes

18

plaintiff: (1) restitution of the property; (2) damages at the rate of $50 per day from May 3,

19

2012, for each day that defendants continued in possession of the property; and (3) costs of suit

20

and further relief as is proper. Plaintiff’s complaint stated that the amount demanded does not

21

exceed $10,000. Pro se defendants Angel and Adriana Chavez removed the action to federal

22

court. By order dated October 5, 2012, the action was remanded by the undersigned judge for

23

lack of jurisdiction (Case No. 12-cv-04254, Dkt. No. 16).

24

Defendants again removed the same unlawful detainer action to federal court. Plaintiff

25

filed a motion to relate cases, which was granted (Case No. 12-6235, Dkt. No. 11). As stated in

26

the prior order:

27
28

Remand is appropriate here. A state-law claim for unlawful detainer
does not arise from federal law. Furthermore, even if defendant had
asserted jurisdiction under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332,
the amount in controversy claimed by plaintiff is under $10,000, which
is far below the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity
jurisdiction.

1
(Case No. 12-cv-04254, Dkt. No. 16). In this second notice of removal, defendants have not
2
provided any additional reason why federal subject-matter jurisdiction is not lacking here. As
3
this is the second time defendants have removed this action, albeit this time on the basis of
4
diversity jurisdiction rather than federal-question jurisdiction, defendants are asked to please not
5
remove this action again. Defendants should proceed to litigate the merits in state court. The
6
action is hereby REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
7
STANISLAUS. The Clerk shall close the file.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated: January 4, 2013.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2