Federal National Mortgage Association v. Irby et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/10/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FEDERAL NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,

MORTGAGE

12

No. C-11-05790 DMR
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ANDRE D. IRBY, et al.,
15
16

Defendants.
___________________________________/

17
18
Defendants Andre D. Irby and Kathy Martinez (“Defendants”) removed this case pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 1441 from Alameda County Superior Court, where it was pending as a complaint for
20
unlawful detainer against Defendant. The Notice of Removal states one ground for removal: that the
21
Complaint presents a federal question such that the case could have originally been filed in this
22
court. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6, 10.) When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it
23
“promptly,” and, “[i]f it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto
24
that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28
25
U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association and Defendants have both
26
consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
27
I. Federal Question Jurisdiction
28

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “[T]he presence or

4

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which

5

provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

6

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)

7

(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to

8

evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in

9

removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 n.2

10

(2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what is or

11

should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. The implication of a federal question through

12

issues raised by an answer or counterclaim does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction.

13

Id. at 831.

14

According to Defendants’ Notice of Removal, a federal question arises because Defendants’

15

answer “depend[s] on the determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal

16

law.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 10.) The complaint that Plaintiff filed in Alameda County Superior

17

Court, however, simply alleges a state cause of action under unlawful detainer. (Compl.) Whatever

18

Defendants intend to argue in response to this allegation does not give rise to removal jurisdiction.

19

II. Conclusion

20

25

I

Dated: January 10, 2012

. Ryu

27

United States Magistrate Judge

RT

NO

onna M
Judge D
DONNA M. RYU

26

28

2

A

H

ER

R NIA

24

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

FO

S
IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

22
23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

Court.

LI

21

For the reasons above, the court REMANDS this action to the Alameda County Superior

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.

3

United States District Court

2

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C