Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Chavez et al

Filing 14

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

Download PDF
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

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?