U.S. Bank National Association v. Zecena

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 10 MOTION FOR REMAND, and DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS 3 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
TO LASALLE BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE
FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE MERRILL
LYNCH FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006FF18,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-1566 CW
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR REMAND, Docket
No. 10, and
DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, Docket
No. 3.

v.
JOSE HUMBERTO ZECENA and DOES 1
through X, Inclusive,
Defendant.
________________________________/

14
15

This case pertains to an unlawful detainer action that was

16

filed in San Mateo County Superior Court on January 6, 2012.

17

March 29, 2012, pro se Defendant Jose Humberto Zecena filed a

18

notice of removal and submitted an application to proceed in forma

19

pauperis.

20

on the grounds that Zecena filed an untimely notice of removal and

21

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

22

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is pending, and he has not

23

opposed the motion to remand, Plaintiff’s request for remand is

24

well taken.

25

On

On June 15, 2012, Plaintiff moved to remand the action

Although Zecena’s

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to

26

federal district court so long as the district court could have

27

exercised original jurisdiction over the matter.

28

§ 1441(a).

28 U.S.C.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447 provides that if at any time

1

before judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject

2

matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from state

3

court, the case must be remanded.

4

motion to remand, the scope of the removal statute must be

5

strictly construed.

6

(9th Cir. 1992).

7

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of

8

establishing that removal is proper."

9

omitted).

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

On a

See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

"The 'strong presumption' against removal

Id. (internal citation

Courts should resolve doubts as to removability in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

favor of remanding the case to state court.

11

federal question jurisdiction is determined by examining the face

12

of the plaintiff’s properly plead complaint.

13

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

14

See id.

Ordinarily,

Caterpillar Inc. v.

From the Notice of Removal, it appears that Zecena sought

15

federal jurisdiction based on federal law he intended to rely on

16

to defend against the unlawful detainer action.

17

Zecena cited the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

18

federal defense, however, is not part of a plaintiff's properly

19

plead statement of his or her claim.

20

of federal question jurisdiction are not satisfied and the Court

21

does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.1

Id.

Specifically,
A

Thus, the requirements

22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Because the Court remands this action to state court based
on a lack of a federal question, it need not address Plaintiff’s
argument that removal was untimely.
2

1

The Court grants Plaintiff's request to remand the action to

2

state court.

3

Superior Court.

4

pauperis is denied as moot.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall remand the file to San Mateo County
Zecena's motion for leave to proceed in forma

6
7
8

Dated:

7/23/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3