U.S. Bank National Association v. Gilliam et al

Filing 18

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS re 9 MOTION to Remand filed by U.S. Bank National Association. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/28/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,

8

AMENDED
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO
REMAND; DENYING REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff,

9
vs.

10
11

Case No.: C-12-00837 YGR

WILLIAM JEFFREY GILLIAM, STEPHANIE CAPONE
GILLIAM; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

12
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) filed this Unlawful Detainer

15
16

Action in the Contra Costa County Superior Court following a non-judicial foreclosure sale of

17

the Defendants William Jeffrey Gilliam, Stephanie Capone Gilliam’s residential property.

18

Defendants, through counsel, removed this action alleging that it arises under two federal laws:

19

the Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et seq. and the

20

Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq.
U.S. Bank filed a Motion to Remand on the grounds that there is no basis for federal

21
22

subject-matter jurisdiction in this action. U.S. Bank also requests an award of attorneys’ fees

23

and costs on the grounds that removal was improper.
Having carefully considered the moving papers and the pleadings in this action, and for

24
25

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Remand and DENIES the

26

Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.1

27
1

28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this motion,
which has been noticed for hearing on April 17, 2012, is appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for April 17, 2012.

1

1

I.

2

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action originally could

LEGAL STANDARD

3

have been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. District courts have federal question

4

jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

5

28 U.S.C. § 1331. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens

6
7
8
9
10

of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court if the district court lacks
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). There is a
“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, with doubts as to removability resolved in

11
favor of remanding the case to state court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); Gaus v. Miles. Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
II.

DISCUSSION

U.S. Bank’s Complaint states one cause of action for unlawful detainer; it does not allege
any federal claims. Defendants removed pursuant to (i) 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), alleging that this
action arises under the Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et
seq. and (ii) 28 U.S.C. 1442a, alleging that it arises under the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act

19

(“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq. Neither the PTFA nor the SCRA provides a basis for

20

federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

21

i.

Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act

22

First, the PTFA protects tenants whose residences are facing foreclosure.

23

Defendants argue, in essence, that because the Complaint alleges the Defendants are not entitled

24

to the PTFA’s protections, this case raises a federal question. Defs. Opp’n 3-5. The PTFA is

25

intended to be used for protection in state court but does not create a private right of action or a

26

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Bank of New York v. Guevara-Martinez, C-11-

27

5474 CW, 2012 WL 50077 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (holding that because the only possible

28

federal issue involved a defense under the PTFA, federal question jurisdiction is lacking);

2

1

Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Jessie Torres, C-11-3061 EJD, 2011 WL 4551458 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

2

30, 2011) (noting that other courts considering this issue came to the same conclusion).

3

Therefore, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action based upon the

4

PTFA.

5

ii.

6

Second, Defendants removed on the basis that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant

7

to 28 U.S.C. § 1442a in that this action arises under the SCRA. Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1,

8

¶ 4. 28 U.S.C. § 1442a allows removal of proceedings brought against members of the armed

9
10
11
12
13

Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act

forces on account of acts done under color of office or in respect to which they claim any right,
title or authority under a law of the United States respecting the armed forces. 28 U.S.C. §
1442a. Defendants interpret the statute to “afford members of the armed forces with the
opportunity to have any civil action directed against them heard in a federal forum.” Defs.’
Opp’n 2 (emphasis added). Defendants’ argument is not supported by the law. Although a

14
tenant on the property is a member of the armed forces, the lawsuit is not related to Corporal
15
16
17
18
19

William Jason Gilliam’s (“Corporal Gilliam”)2 official duties, but instead involves an unlawful
detainer action following the nonjudicial foreclosure of his landlords’ residential property.
Accordingly, Corporal Gilliam’s status as a member of the armed forces, in and of itself, does
not make this case removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1442a.
Finally, Defendants argue that removal is necessary to have a federal court determine

20
21

Corporal Gilliam’s rights under the SCRA. The SCRA was enacted “to protect those

22

[servicemembers] who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the

23

nation” from exposure to personal liability without an opportunity to appear and defend in person

24

or through counsel. Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943) (discussed in Conroy v.

25

Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511 (1993)). According to affidavits submitted by the Defendants, Corporal

26

Gilliam has been or may be deployed into active duty during this lawsuit. If so, the SCRA may

27
28

2

Not named a Defendant in the action, U.S. Marine Corp Corporal William Jason Gilliam filed a prejudgment
Claim of Right to Possession stating that he occupies an “in-law” unit at the residence. Dkt. No. 3.

3

1

allow for this action to be stayed during Corporal Gilliam’s period of military service. See 50

2

U.S.C. § 502. The SCRA protects servicemembers in state, federal and administrative

3

proceedings. Id. But the SCRA neither creates a private right of action nor a basis for federal

4

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action

5

based upon the SCRA.

6

iii.

7

To the extent that Defendants may intend to raise defenses based on either the

8
9
10
11
12

There Is No Other Basis for Jurisdiction

PTFA or SCRA, such defenses are not sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a case may not
be removed on the basis of a federal defense).
Finally, the Court also agrees with Plaintiff that there cannot be diversity jurisdiction
because the amount in controversy is alleged to be less than $10,000.00, which does not meet the

13
$75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold.
14
III.

CONCLUSION

15
There is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, U.S. Bank’s Motion
16
to Remand is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this action to the Contra
17
Costa County Superior Court, Walnut Creek Judicial District. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’
18
Fees is DENIED.
19
This Order Terminates Docket Number 9.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22

Dated: March 28, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

4