DAPC, LLC v. Rodriguez
Filing
14
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 11 Motion to Remand Case and this action is Remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court ; Denying as moot 12 Motion to Shorten Time; Denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
DAPC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
Case No.: C12-CV-02476-YGR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
REMAND
vs.
JOSE L. RODRIGUEZ, JUAN CARLOS
LOPEZ, and DOES 1-10,
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant Juan Carlos Lopez ("Defendant") removed this case from Contra Costa County
Superior Court on May 15, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1, "Notice of Removal (Under Federal Question
Jurisdiction)" ("Removal Notice") ¶ 1.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on July 23,
2012. (Dkt. No. 11 ("Motion").) On the same day, Plaintiff filed an Application for Order
Shortening Time and Advancing Motion to Remand to State Court. (Dkt. No. 12, "Application to
Shorten Time.")
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), "any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court
has original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly,
1
"federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
2
instance." Id. at 566. A district court must remand the case to state court if it appears at any time
3
before final judgment that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
4
Defendant alleges removal is proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to
5
28 U.S.C. section 1331. Federal question jurisdiction is limited by the well-pleaded complaint rule,
6
"a powerful doctrine [that] severely limits the number of cases in which state law 'creates the cause
7
of action' that may be initiated in or removed to federal district court." Lippitt v. Raymond James
8
Fin. Servs., 340 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr.
9
Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1983)) (alterations in original and internal quotations
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
omitted). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule,
Whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United
States . . . must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's
statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in
anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant might
interpose.
15
Lippitt, 340 F.3d at 1040 (quoting Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914)) (alteration in
16
original).
17
Defendant asserts that federal question jurisdiction is proper because his defenses implicate
18
federal law. Specifically, he asserts that Plaintiff has discriminated against him and violated federal
19
law by failing to provide him with a 90-day notice to quit under the Protecting Tenants at
20
Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. section 5200 (“PFTA”). Removal Notice ¶¶ 3-4. Defendant’s
21
claim of discrimination or assertion of PFTA does not create a federal question. A claim “arises
22
under” federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal
23
claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims
24
asserting a federal question do not satisfy this requirement. Id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
25
U.S. 386, 393 (1987) ("[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on
26
the basis of a federal defense."). Indeed, the federal question must be presented by the plaintiff’s
27
complaint as it stands at the time of removal. The record indicates that Plaintiff’s state court
28
complaint presents a claim arising only under state law for unlawful detainer and does not allege
2
1
any federal claims whatsoever. (See Dkt. No. 1, "Complaint for Unlawful Detainer" ("Complaint")
2
at ECF p. 10.) Defendant’s allegations in a Removal Notice cannot provide this Court with federal
3
question jurisdiction.
4
Moreover, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates
5
that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. As such, removal to federal court cannot be
6
based on diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a).
7
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this action is
8
hereby REMANDED to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the
9
Application to Shorten Time. This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12. The pending Application
10
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Defendant (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT based on this Order.
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
The Clerk of this Court is further ordered to forward certified copies of this Order and all
docket entries to the Clerk of the Contra Costa County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
Dated: August 2, 2012
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?