Deutsche Bank Trust Company v. Sterling et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 6/12/2014 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 5/29/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/16/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/16/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (cdnS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICA AS TRUSTEE, Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 14-cv-02181-MEJ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. DARRICK D. STERLING, et al., Defendant. 12 13 On May 12, 2014, Defendants Darrick Sterling and Sylvester Bradford removed this 14 unlawful detainer action from Alameda County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer 15 action does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo 16 Bank v. Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. 17 Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, it appears that jurisdiction is 18 lacking and the case should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 19 Defendants to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the Alameda County Superior 20 Court. Defendants shall file a declaration by May 29, 2014, and the Court shall conduct a hearing 21 on June 12, 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: May 16, 2014 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 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?