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)

Download PDF
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?