Calvary SPV I, LLC v. Wofford

Filing 12

ORDER REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 25, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
CALVARY SPV I, LLC,

7

Case No. 14-cv-03104-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

9
GAIL J. WOFFORD,

10

Re: ECF No. 1

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This action for a claim arising out the “buying and collecting” of debts was removed to this

13

court from the Superior Court of Lake County by Defendant Wofford on July 8, 2014. ECF No. 1.

14

The summons attached to the notice of removal states that the single cause of action asserted in the

15

complaint is one under “Rule 3.740 collections,” which arises exclusively under state law.1 ECF

16

No. 1, Ex. 1.

17

The Court will remand the action to state court because removal was improper. According

18

to the notice of removal, the basis for removal was federal question jurisdiction because “the act of

19

action [sic] of buying and collecting debts across multiple state lines necessarily involves

20

interstate commerce.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 8. That the activities at issue in the complaint “involve”

21

interstate commerce is insufficient to find that “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or

22

laws of the United States” is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. See Cal.

23

Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538, 541 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding

24

that a district court has federal question jurisdiction over an action if, under the well-pleaded

25

complaint rule, the court determines that “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws

26
27
28

1

Under California Rule of Court 3.740, a “collections case” is “an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney
fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit.”

1

of the United States” is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action). As such, this case

2

could not have been removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

3

The action also could not have been removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, because

4

that basis for removal is unavailable when “any of the parties in interest properly joined and

5

served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. §

6

1441(b)(2). In the notice of removal, Defendant Wofford states that she is “a natural woman

7

residing within this judicial district, and a citizen of the State of California.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Accordingly, this action is remanded to the Superior Court of Lake County. The Clerk
shall terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2