Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eberwein

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/5/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL.,, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 12 No. C 17-02619 JSW v. ORDER OF REMAND ROBERT EBERWEIN, ET AL., Defendants. 13 / 14 15 On May 16, 2017, this Court issued an order to show cause to Defendants to demonstrate by 16 no later than May 31, 2017 as to why this case should not be remanded to the Superior Court of the 17 State of California for the County of Mendocino. Although the Court has received a response to its 18 order, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 20 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal 21 jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is 22 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th 23 Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction 24 must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d 25 at 566. 26 The action filed in state court is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law does not 27 create the cause of action. Moreover, the Court finds that the claim will not necessarily depend upon 28 the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiffs need not prove compliance 1 with the federal law relied upon by Defendant to establish its claim. See, e.g., Grable & Sons Metal 2 Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005). 3 Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint 4 gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question, even if the 5 defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 10, 14; see 6 also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal 7 court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is 8 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is 9 the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as currently pled and must remand to the state court. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 13 14 15 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Mendocino. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2017 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?