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)

Download PDF
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

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?