Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Alvarado et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on February 11, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Case No. 14-cv-00229-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

AGUEDA ALVARADO, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On January 15, 2014, Defendants Agueda and Hector Alvarado removed this unlawful

14

detainer action from the San Mateo County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action

15

does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v.

16

Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010

17

WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, it appears that jurisdiction is lacking and the

18

case should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to

19

show cause why this case should not be remanded to the San Mateo County Superior Court.

20

Defendants shall file a declaration by February 25, 2014, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on

21

March 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

22

Francisco, California. In the declaration, Defendants must address how this Court has jurisdiction

23

over Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim.

24

Defendants should be mindful that an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not

25

sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers

26

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). “A case

27

may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is

28

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only

question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health

2

and Environmental Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

3

Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-

4

law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal

5

preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”). Thus, any anticipated defense, such

6

as a claim under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), Pub.L. No. 111–22, § 702,

7

123 Stat. 1632 (2009), is not a valid ground for removal. See e.g. Aurora Loan Services, LLC v.

8

Montoya, 2011 WL 5508926, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011); SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 2010 WL

9

4809661, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Nov.19, 2010); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578,

10

at 2–3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010); Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

1 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2010).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: February 11, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2