U.S. Bank National Association et al v. Bilbaeno et al
Filing
6
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 4 Motion to Remand.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
) Case No. C 13-1748 SC
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE
)
HOLDERS OF HOME EQUITY PASS)
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
)
2005-08,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MODESTO BILBAENO JR., CAROLINA )
G. BILBAENO, JOSEPH CABALICA,
)
and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
18
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
Now before the Court is Plaintiff U.S. Bank National
22
Association's ("Plaintiff") motion to remand this case to state
23
court, and for sanctions, fees, and costs associated with
24
responding to a frivolous removal.
25
filed no response.
26
without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
27
explained below, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand and GRANTS
28
the motion for fees and costs, but DENIES the motion for sanctions.
ECF No. 4.
Defendants have
Plaintiff's motion is appropriate for decision
For the reasons
1 II.
BACKGROUND
2
This case arises from an unlawful detainer action under
3
California law.
In July 2005, above-captioned Defendants obtained
4
a loan secured on a Deed of Trust (the "DOT") for property in South
5
San Francisco (the "property").
6
assignment in July 2008.
7
January 2012.
8
property was sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale and title
9
reverted to Plaintiff on October 9, 2012.
Plaintiff obtained the DOT via
Defendants defaulted on their loan in
They failed to cure their default, after which the
Plaintiff served
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants with a Notice to Vacate on October 23, 2012, but
11
Defendants did not comply.
12
property.
They remain in possession of the
On January 24, 2013, after the Notice to Vacate's expiration,
13
14
Plaintiff filed an action for unlawful detainer in San Mateo County
15
Superior Court ("state court").
16
entered judgment as to Defendant Cabalica on March 25, 2013.
17
entered default judgment against the remaining Defendants and all
18
unnamed occupants of the property on April 4, 2013.
19
day, the state court issued a Writ of Possession for Real Property
20
in Plaintiff's favor.
21
action to federal court.
22
Sheriff's Department has refused to enforce the Writ of Possession
23
and move forward with the lockout.
After trial, the state court
It
On that same
On April 17, 2013, Defendants removed this
Consequently, the San Mateo County
24
25 III.
LEGAL STANDARD
26
When a case "of which the district courts of the United States
27
have original jurisdiction" is initially brought in state court,
28
the defendant may remove it to federal court.
2
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
1
There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1)
2
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2)
3
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4
has federal question jurisdiction in "all civil actions arising
5
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
6
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
7
face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."
8
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
9
diversity jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds the
A district court
The federal question must be "presented on the
Caterpillar
A district court has
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
sum of $75,000, and is between, among other things, citizens of
11
different States, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects
12
of a foreign state.
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A district court may remand a case to state court either for
13
14
lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal
15
procedure.
16
sponte or on motion of a party, and the parties who invoked the
17
federal court's removal jurisdiction have the burden of
18
establishing federal jurisdiction.
19
Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic
20
Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447c).
The court may remand sua
See Enrich v. Touche Ross &
21
22 IV.
DISCUSSION
23
A.
24
Defendants' Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 ("Notice"), asserts
Remand
25
two grounds for removal to federal court: diversity jurisdiction
26
and federal question jurisdiction.
27
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Defendants assert that Plaintiff and
28
Defendants are citizens of different states, and that the amount in
3
As to diversity jurisdiction
1
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Id.
As to federal question jurisdiction, Defendants cite a section
2
3
of the United States Code that grants bankruptcy judges
4
jurisdiction over Title 11 cases and "core proceedings," which
5
include, among other things, counterclaims by an estate against
6
persons filing claims against the state.
7
U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)).
8
a core proceeding because it "concerns claims and counter-claims to
9
the Proof of Claim and matters arising out of the administration of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
this removal case."
Id. at 3 (citing 28
Defendants claim, vaguely, that this case is
Id.
11
Neither of Defendants' grounds for removal is sufficient.
12
First, the face of the state court complaint states that the action
13
involves less than $10,000.
14
§ 1332's amount in controversy requirement: "[W]hen a state court
15
complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in controversy is
16
less than the jurisdictional threshold, the party seeking removal
17
must prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdiction amount is
18
met."
19
finds that, based on the amount on the face of the state court
20
complaint, the jurisdictional amount has not been met in this case.
21
Second, this case is not a bankruptcy case, so 28 U.S.C. § 157
See Notice Ex. B.
Defendants offer no proof of any kind.
This fails to meet
The Court therefore
22
does not apply, and no federal claims appear on the face of the
23
complaint.
24
(federal question grounds for removal must be disclosed on the face
25
of the complaint, not in the answer or petition for removal);
26
Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.
27
lacks federal question jurisdiction.
28
See Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936)
Accordingly, the Court finds that it
The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
4
1
this case.
The case must be remanded to state court.
2
B.
Sanctions, Fees, and Costs
3
If a district court remands a case, it may require payment of
incurred as a result of the removal."
6
Assessing costs and fees on remand "reduces the attractiveness of
7
removal as a method for delaying litigation and imposing costs on
8
the plaintiff," and the appropriate test for awarding fees under §
9
1447(c) turns on the reasonableness of the removal.
10
United States District Court
"just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees,
5
For the Northern District of California
4
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140-41 (2005).
11
courts may award fees under § 1447(c) only if the removing party
12
lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.
13
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Martin v.
Accordingly,
Id.
The Court finds it obvious that a reasonable attorney would
14
have seen no reasonable basis for removing this case.
15
court had already entered judgment before Defendants removed; the
16
thirty-day removal period, beginning from the time when Defendants
17
received the initial pleading, had long passed; and as stated
18
above, the Court very obviously lacks jurisdiction over this
19
matter.
20
remove this case was meant to delay the enforcement of the Writ of
21
Possession.
22
and remand statute's fees and costs provision is meant to deter.
23
See id.
24
The state
The Court finds it clear that Defendants' decision to
This is exactly the kind of behavior that the removal
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the
25
fees and costs it incurred in filing this Motion.
26
the Declaration of Plaintiff's counsel Evan Anderson in support of
27
Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs, Mot. at 14, the Court finds
28
Mr. Anderson's hours and billing rate reasonable.
5
Having reviewed
The Court
1
therefore AWARDS Plaintiff $481 for fees and costs incurred in
2
preparing and drafting its Motion.
3
Plaintiff costs that it anticipated incurring in responding to
4
oppositions or attending arguments and hearings.
5
costs have been incurred in this case: this Motion is unopposed,
6
and the Court has held no hearings or arguments.
7
and costs is to be assessed solely against Defendants' counsel,
8
Linda Z. Voss.
The Court declines to award
None of those
The $481 in fees
The Court declines to sanction Defendants' counsel in this
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
case.
Sanctions would be duplicative of the costs awarded to
11
Plaintiff under the removal statute.
12
issue an order precluding future removal of this action.
The Court also declines to
13
14
15
V.
CONCLUSION
As explained above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff U.S. Bank
16
National Association's motion to remand this case to San Mateo
17
County Superior Court.
18
attorney's fees totaling $481.
19
responsible for paying these fees and costs.
The Court also AWARDS Plaintiff costs and
Defendants' counsel alone is
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: June 27, 2013
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
6
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?