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).

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