Waypoint Homes Inc v. Fagorala
Filing
7
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 5 Motion to Remand to Contra Costa Superior Court. The Court VACATES the hearing set for December 4, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
WAYPOINT HOMES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
Case No.: 12-CV-05282-YGR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND CASE AND DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
vs.
ADE FAGORALA,
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
Defendant.
12
13
Defendant Ade Fagorala removed this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of the
14
State of California, County of Contra Costa, on October 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of
15
Removal).) Defendant removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446, invoking
16
this Court’s federal question jurisdiction based on the “Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”
17
(“FDCPA”) and the Fourth Amendment’s “Federal Search and Seizure Rules.” (Notice of
18
Removal at 2.) Defendant also asserted that diversity jurisdiction exists. (Id. at 4.)
19
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand Case on October 25, 2012. (Dkt. No. 5
20
(“Motion”).) Defendant did not file a response to the Motion. The Court hereby GRANTS the
21
pending Motion because no federal question is presented in this action, and no diversity jurisdiction
22
exists.1
23
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which
24
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant
25
or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
26
the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, a
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 December 4, 2012.
1
district court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
2
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is
3
on the party seeking removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal
4
jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
5
Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in
6
the first instance.” Id. at 566. A district court must remand the case to state court if it appears at
7
any time before final judgment that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
8
1447(c).
9
Defendant characterizes this action as one for unlawful debt collection under the FDCPA
Northern District of California
and also seeks to cross-complain based on the same. However, Defendant’s claim under the
11
United States District Court
10
FDCPA (nor the Fourth Amendment) does not create a federal question. A claim “arises under”
12
federal law if, based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for
13
relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a
14
federal question do not satisfy this requirement. Id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393
15
(1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a
16
federal defense.”). The federal question must be presented by the plaintiff’s complaint as it stands
17
at the time of removal. The record indicates that Plaintiff’s state court complaint presents one state
18
law claim for unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. The
19
complaint is clearly captioned as a “Complaint for Unlawful Detainer – Real Property” and does
20
not allege any federal claims whatsoever. Defendant’s allegations in the Notice of Removal cannot
21
provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction.
22
Moreover, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. The complaint indicates that the
23
amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. As such, removal to federal court cannot be based on
24
diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a).
25
For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Contra Costa County
26
Superior Court. The pending Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Defendant (Dkt. No. 3)
27
is DENIED AS MOOT based on this Order. This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 3 & 5.
28
2
1
2
3
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.
4
5
6
Dated: November 14, 2012
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
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?