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).

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