Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Robinson et al

Filing 7

REMAND ORDER re 4 MOTION to Remand, 5 MOTION to Shorten Time.. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 5, 2015. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. C 15-01726 WHA

v.
ANTONIA ROBINSON,
GARY ROBINSON, AND DOES 1–10,

REMAND ORDER

Defendants.
/

16
17

Defendants Antonia and Gary Robinson removed this unlawful-detainer action from

18

Alameda County Superior Court based on an alleged federal defense (Dkt. No. 1).

19

The Robinsons were requested to show cause why this case should not be remanded (Dkt. No.

20

6). They did not respond. This case is hereby REMANDED to Alameda County Superior Court.

21

A court shall remand a case if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the

22

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). “A defendant may not

23

remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises

24

under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,

25

10 (1983) (internal citations omitted). As stated in the order to show cause, an anticipated

26

federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Ibid.

27
28

This action must be remanded because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff’s complaint, the only pleading from which subject-matter jurisdiction could arise,
contains no federal claims or bases for federal-question jurisdiction. The Robinsons’ alleged

1

federal defense based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act is not sufficient to confer

2

jurisdiction. See Saratoga Fund Holdings, LLC v. Walker, No. C-14-04629-JST,

3

2014 WL 6969260, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (Judge Jon Tigar) (citing Franchise Tax

4

Board, 463 U.S. at 10).

5

Similarly, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. 1332.

6

The complaint only seeks repossession of the premises and costs of suit. The amount in

7

controversy is less than ten thousand dollars. More, the complaint neither alleges nor provides a

8

basis for finding that there is complete diversity of the parties.

9

The case is hereby REMANDED to Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion to shorten time (Dkt. Nos. 4–5) are

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DENIED AS MOOT.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 5, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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