Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for DSLA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1 v. Martinez et al

Filing 7

ORDER Granting Defendants 3 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Directing the Clerk of the Court to Reassign this Action to a District Judge, and Recommending the Action be Remanded. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/15/2014. (lblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

ORDER (1) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK
OF THE COURT TO REASSIGN THIS
ACTION TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff,
13

No. C 14-2935 LB

v.

14

ALBERT MARTINEZ, et al.

15

Defendant(s).
____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

16
[Re: ECF No. 1, 3]
17
INTRODUCTION
18
On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust (“Deutsche”) brought an unlawful
19
detainer action against Defendants Frances Martinez and Albert Martinez in Superior Court for
20

Contra Costa County. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 41-58.1 On June 25, 2014, Mr.

21
Martinez, who is proceeding pro se, removed the action this court and filed an application to
22
proceed in forma pauperis. See id. at 1-40; IFP Application, ECF No. 3. The court GRANTS Mr.
23
Martinez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court reassign
24
the action to a district judge, and RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district judge remand
25
the action to the Contra Costa County Superior Court.
26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 14-2935 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STATEMENT

1
2

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff bought the property where Defendants reside at a Trustee’s sale.

3

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 47-48, ¶¶ 1, 4. On March 11, 2013, Defendants were served with a written

4

notice to vacate the premises, located in Walnut Creek, California, within 90 days. Id. at 48, ¶ 6.

5

Plaintiff alleges that the notice was properly served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §

6

1162, but Defendants did not vacate the property. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages from

7

the date the notice expired on June 10, 2013, to the date judgment is rendered, at a rate of $45.37 per

8

day. Id. at 48-49, ¶ 10.

9

On June 25, 2013, Mr. Martinez removed the case to the district court asserting that the court has
original jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 5. On July 7, 2014, Mr. Martinez declined

11

magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). Declination, ECF No. 6.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

13
14

ANALYSIS
I. MR. MARTINEZ’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
As an initial matter, the court notes that Mr. Martinez filed an application to proceed in forma

15

pauperis on June 25, 2014. IFP Application, ECF No. 3. Upon consideration of Mr. Martinez’s

16

application, the court GRANTS his application.

17

II. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION DOES NOT EXIST

18

A defendant in a state court may remove an action to federal court so long as the action could

19

have originally asserted federal-question jurisdiction.2 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The removing

20

defendant has the burden of proving the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction. Shizuko Nishimoto

21

v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction statutes

22

are strictly construed against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108

23

(1941); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985).

24

The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the

25

plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal for federal-question jurisdiction to exist. Duncan v.

26

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). A plaintiff may, “by eschewing

27
28

2

District courts have original jurisdiction over cases that arise under the laws of the United
States. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.1.
C 14-2935 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

2

1

claims based on federal law, choose to have the cause be heard in state court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v.

2

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987). And an anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer

3

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10

4

(1983); Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, a

5

plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting necessary federal questions from his or her complaint.

6

Id. at 22.

7

It is well established that unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without

8

more, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Lopez,

9

No. C 11-00451 WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v.
Rosario, No. C 11-1894 PJH, 2011 WL 1754053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit

11

Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010).

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Mr. Martinez argues that the court has federal question jurisdiction because Deutsche violated

13

federal laws, specifically the Truth and Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

14

Act (RESPA), and the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA). Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 1-

15

2, ¶ 2(b). These assertions are federal defenses, however, which cannot provide this court with

16

federal question jurisdiction regardless of their merits. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 463 U.S. at 10;

17

Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042-43. The court therefore lacks original jurisdiction to hear this case.

18

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION DOES NOT EXIST

19

The court further finds that Mr. Martinez may not invoke diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1332(a), federal courts have original jurisdiction where the opposing parties are citizens of

21

different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

22

First, the amount in controversy is not met. In unlawful detainer actions, the right to possession

23

of the property is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiffs may collect only damages that are

24

incident to that unlawful possession. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478

25

PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal. App.

26

3d 162, 170 (1977)). Here, Deutsche’s complaint seeks less than $20,000. Compl., ECF No. 1 at

27

49. Second, even if the threshold amount for diversity jurisdiction were satisfied, removal is not

28

proper. Under the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a civil action may not be removed on
C 14-2935 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

3

1

the basis of diversity jurisdiction where a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was

2

brought.

3
4

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Mr. Martinez’s application to proceed in forma

5

pauperis, ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this action to a district judge, and

6

RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district court judge REMAND the action to the Superior

7

Court for Contra Costa County.

8
9

Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation with the district judge within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the

11

district court.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 15, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 14-2935 LB
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

4