Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Quintanilla et al

Filing 16

ORDER REMANDING CASE., ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/24/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

Case No: C 12-2581 SBA

6 COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

Related to:
No. C 11-1044 SBA
ORDER REMANDING ACTION

9 LUIS QUINTANILLA and ODILIA

QUINTANILLA,
10

Defendants.
11
12
13

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed the instant unlawful detainer

14

(“UD”) action against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra

15

Costa, on January 11, 2011, seeking possession of certain residential property located at

16

5049 Claremont Ct., Oakley, California 94561. Acting pro se, Defendants removed the

17

action to this Court on March 7, 2011. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Quintanilla,

18

No. C 11-1044 SBA. On May 25, 2011, the Court sua sponte remanded the action for lack

19

of subject matter jurisdiction. Id., Dkt. 12. On remand to the state court, the UD action

20

proceeded to trial and was resolved in favor of Plaintiff. The judgment was entered and a

21

writ was issued on May 7, 2012. On May 17, 2012, Defendants again removed the action

22

to this Court on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1331. Dkt. 1 at 2.1 Defendants also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

24

(“IFP”). Dkt. 3.

25
26

Federal courts have an independent duty to ascertain their jurisdiction and may
remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also

27
1

28

On June 21, 2012, the Court deemed Case No. C 11-1044 SBA related to the
instant action, within the meaning of Local Rule 3-12. Dkt. 11.

1

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998). Under 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

3

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

4

defendants, to the district court of the United States ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28

5

U.S.C. § 1331, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

6

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Federal question jurisdiction is

7

presumed to be absent unless the removing party which seeks to invoke the Court’s

8

jurisdiction shows that plaintiff has alleged: (1) a federal cause of action, Am. Well Works

9

Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“a suit arises under the law that

10

creates the action”); (2) a state cause of action that turns on a substantial dispositive issue of

11

federal law, Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9

12

(1983); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921); or (3) a state

13

cause of action that Congress has transformed into an inherently federal cause of action by

14

completely preempting the field of its subject matter, Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735,

15

390 U.S. 557, 560 (1968).

16

In the case of a removed action, a district court must remand the case to state court

17

“if at any time before the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject

18

matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

19

1992). “The presumption against removal means that the defendant always has the burden

20

of establishing that removal is proper.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d

21

1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.”

22

Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).

23

As such, any doubts regarding the propriety of the removal favor remanding the case. See

24

Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

25

Here, Defendants’ Notice of Removal alleges that Plaintiff, through its UD action,

26

has violated various federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

27

(erroneously referred to as the “Federal Debt Collections Practices Act”), the Truth in

28

Lending Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. See Dkt. 1 at 3. However,
-2-

1

federal subject matter jurisdiction must be apparent from the face of the complaint, and

2

cannot lie in anticipated defenses. Specifically, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases

3

in which a “well-pleaded complaint” establishes that federal law creates the cause of action.

4

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).

5

Defensive matters do not confer federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes: “a

6

defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint

7

establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Id. at 10 (emphasis in original). In

8

reviewing the instant pleadings, it is readily apparent that this case does not satisfy the

9

jurisdictional requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Complaint is

10

presents a UD claim, and does not assert any federal claims. Thus, based on the record

11

presented, it is facially apparent that this case does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1331 for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is REMANDED to the

14

Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. The Clerk shall close this file and

15

terminate all pending matters. Plaintiff’s pending motion for remand (which has not yet

16

been heard) (Dkt. 7, 13) and Defendants’ request to proceed IFP (Dkt. 3) are DENIED as

17

moot.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2012

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
LUIS QUINTANILLA et al,
Defendant.
/

9
10

Case Number: CV12-02581 SBA

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 25, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Luis Quintanilla
5049 Claremont Court
Oakley, CA 94561

20
21
22

Odilia Quintanilla
5049 Claremont Court
Oakley, CA 94561

23
Dated: July 25, 2012
24

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

25
26
27
28
-4-

1

By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-