Federal National Mortgage Association v. Tello et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 6 MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 3 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS . Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2012) Modified on 5/29/2012 (ndr, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, its assignees and/or successors, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 JUANA INES TELLO, JESSE TELLO, REINA TELLO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 15 No. C 12-1560 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 18 On March 28, 2012, Defendants Juana Ines Tello and Jesse 19 Tello removed this case from the San Francisco County Superior 20 Court and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 21 From the face of the application it appears that Defendants meet 22 the financial requirements to proceed IFP and the application to 23 proceed IFP is granted. 24 On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage 25 Association moved for remand. 26 was due on April 20, 2012, but has not been filed. 27 2012, Plaintiff re-noticed its motion to remand. 28 Opposition to the motion to remand On May 3, The Court has 1 reviewed the removed complaint and concludes that it must be 2 remanded. 3 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to 4 federal district court so long as the district court could have 5 exercised original jurisdiction over the matter. 6 § 1441(a). 7 question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 8 Bd. of State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust 9 for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). 28 U.S.C. For removal to be proper, there must be federal Franchise Tax District courts United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 have federal question jurisdiction over civil actions arising 11 under the United States Constitution, or the laws or treaties of 12 the United States. 13 diversity jurisdiction over civil actions when they are between 14 citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 15 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. District courts have 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 16 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that if, at any time 17 before judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject 18 matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from state 19 court, the case must be remanded. 20 scope of the removal statute must be strictly construed. 21 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 23 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 24 Id. 25 remanding the case to state court. 26 On a motion to remand, the Gaus v. “The ‘strong Courts should resolve doubts as to removability in favor of Id. This removed case is a residential unlawful detainer action 27 following a non-judicial foreclosure. 28 action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively under state 2 It contains one cause of 1 law. 2 foreclosure was improper because Plaintiff did not have the 3 authority to foreclose on their home. 4 are alleging that federal jurisdiction exists under the Federal 5 Debt Collection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(c) through (g). 6 "[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is 7 governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that 8 federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 9 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded In their notice of removal, Defendants argue that It appears that Defendants However, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 complaint.'" 11 (1998) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 12 (1987)). 13 plead statement of his or her claim. 14 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987)). 15 therefore, may not be removed to federal court based on a federal 16 defense "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's 17 complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the 18 only question truly at issue in the case." 19 U.S. at 14; see Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475. 20 21 22 Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 A federal defense is not part of a plaintiff's properly Id. (citing Metropolitan A case, Franchise Tax Bd., 463 Because the only possible federal issue in this case involves a defense, federal question jurisdiction is lacking. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks damages in an 23 amount not to exceed $10,000. 24 is less than $75,000, diversity jurisdiction is lacking. 25 Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 291 (1938) 26 (the status of the case as disclosed by the plaintiff's complaint 27 is controlling for purposes of removal). Because the amount in controversy 28 3 See St. 1 Because there is no federal question or diversity 2 jurisdiction, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 3 this case and it must be remanded. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' 6 application to proceed IFP and grants Plaintiff's motion to remand 7 this case to the San Francisco County Superior Court (docket nos. 8 3, 6). 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 Dated: 5/29/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?