Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Goldman

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/17/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2013)

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
No. C 13-00738 RS

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
CO.,

12
13
14
15
16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
MOTION TO REMAND AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES

Plaintiff,
v.
GERARD DUENAS and Does 1 through
100 inclusive,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

The United States Magistrate Judge to whom this action was initially assigned issued a

19

report and recommendation that plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted and its request for attorneys

20

fees and costs be denied. See Dkt. 14. Specifically, in the Report dated April 2, 2013, the Judge

21

found: (1) defendant’s removal was untimely, (2) no diversity jurisdiction exists because the amount

22

in controversy is less than $10,000, (3) there is no federal question jurisdiction as the complaint’s

23

only claim for relief is for unlawful detainer under state law, and (4) although defendant’s amended

24

notice of removal argues for federal question jurisdiction on the basis of cross-claims alleging

25

violations of the Protecting Tenants of Foreclosure Act (PTFA) or the Fourteenth Amendment to the

26

United States Constitution, no such cross-claims have been filed and, in any event, the PTFA “does

27

not create a private right of action or basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.” See id. at 4

28

(quoting Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Eaddy, 2012 WL 4173987, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18,
1
No. 13-00738 RS
ORDER

1

2012)). As to plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees and costs, the Judge correctly recommended

2

denial of the motion in view of defendant’s pro se status, but cautioned him that sanctions could be

3

imposed in the event he improperly removes this action to federal court again in the future.

4

No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Only after it was issued

5

did defendant file an untimely response to plaintiff’s motion to remand. Having considered that

6

response, there is no support for reaching a result different than that recommended by the Magistrate

7

Judge. The report and recommendation is therefore adopted and incorporated in full, and the case is

8

remanded. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: 4/17/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
No. 13-00738 RS
ORDER