Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bringas et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 8 Motion to Remand to San Mateo Superior Court. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

9

Plaintiff,
10

vs.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Case No.: 12-CV-3673 YGR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO
REMAND; DENYING REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES; AND DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

AURORA MUNOZ BRINGAS, DAVID HERRERA,
and JOSE HERRERA,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This case was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo where it was

16
17

pending as an unlawful detainer action against Jose Herrera, Aurora Munoz Bringas and David

18

Herrera. Pro se Defendant Jose Herrera removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 invoking

19

this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis that he intends to raise a

20

defense under the Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act (“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

21
22

existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant did not file an opposition.
The Court GRANTS the motion for remand because no federal question is presented in this

23
24

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

25
26

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

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.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

remanded.
Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’

5
6

Fees is DENIED.

7

Defendant’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.

8

The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to the San Mateo County Superior

9

Court.

Northern District of California

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 2 & 8.

11

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Date: November 2, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2