Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chaney

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY 7 2 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/20/2013)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
No. C 13-03538 SI

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
REMANDING CASE TO THE SUPERIOR
COURT FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY

Plaintiff,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

v.
DARRYL CHANEY,
Defendant.

/

11
12

Pro se defendant Darryl Chaney removed this unlawful detainer action from state court and filed

13

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 5, 2013, Chief Magistrate Judge Laporte issued

14

a Report and Recommendation Re: Defendant’s Notice of Removal.

15

The Report and Recommendation finds that there is no federal jurisdiction because there are no

16

federal claims alleged in the complaint and no basis for diversity jurisdiction. The Report and

17

Recommendation was served on defendant by mail. No objections were filed by the August 19, 2013

18

deadline. This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge.

19

The Court GRANTS defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and concludes that

20

removal was improper. The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), cited in the Notice of

21

Removal, does not create a federal claim or any private right of action. See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank

22

Nat. Trust Co., 2010 WL 2179885, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2010). While the PTFA’s notice

23

requirements may create a federal defense to unlawful detainer in a state court action, see Wells Fargo

24

Bank v. Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011), an anticipated federal defense,

25

without more, is not sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction, see Franchise Tax Bd. of California v.

26

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071,

27

1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

28

1
2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and REMANDS this case
to the Superior Court for Alameda County. This Order resolves Docket Nos. 2, 4, and 7.1

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: August 20, 2013
6

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docket No. 7) is moot.
2