Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hoyes

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 11 Motion to Remand; Remanding Action to Alameda County Superior Court; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The hearing set for July 17, 2012 is VACATED. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiffs,

9

vs.

10
11

Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND;
REMANDING ACTION; DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ERIC HOYES,
Defendant.

12
United States District Court

Case No.: 12-CV-02509 YGR

13

This case was removed from Alameda County Superior Court where it was pending as an

14
15

unlawful detainer action against pro se Defendant Eric Hoyes. Mr. Hoyes removed this action

16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 invoking this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

17

1331 on the basis that he intends to raise a defense under the Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act

18

(“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et seq.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand on the grounds that Defendant has failed to establish the

19
20

existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court GRANTS the motion for remand because no federal question is presented in this

21
22

action.1
The complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer. Thus, there is no federal

23
24

question. A defense under the PTFA does not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Caterpillar

25

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a case may not be

26

removed on the basis of a federal defense). Finally, the amount in controversy does not meet the

27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this
motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for
July 17, 2012.

1

jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action must be

2

remanded.
Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 11, is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to

3
4

Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to the Alameda County Superior

5
6

Court.

7

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 2 & 11.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Date: July 10, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

2