Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Harrell et al

Filing 4

ORDER Reassigning Case to a District Judge; Report and Recommendation to Remand to State Court; Order Granting 2 In Forma Pauperis Application. Objections due by 9/22/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/1/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,

8

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND
TO STATE COURT; ORDER
GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
WALTER HARRELL, et al.,

11

Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04980-KAW

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

12

On August 28, 2017, Defendant Walter Harrell removed this unlawful detainer action from

13
14

San Mateo County Superior Court, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Not. of Removal,

15

Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.)
As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for

16
17

the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that

18

the case be remanded to state court. Additionally, the Court grants Defendant’s application to

19

proceed in forma pauperis.
I.

20

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company commenced this unlawful detainer action

21
22

against Defendant in San Mateo County Superior Court on or around June 5, 2017. (Not. of

23

Removal at 8.1) The complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The

24

case is a “limited civil case,” in which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property

25

located in Montara, California, which Defendant occupies.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Walter Harrell and Bonnie Harrell defaulted on the

26
27
28

1

The page numbers refer to the ECF header.

1

payment of a promissory note, resulting in the property being sold to Plaintiff at public auction on

2

January 17, 2017 to satisfy the obligations secured by the deed of trust. Id. at 9. On April 17,

3

2017, after Plaintiff's title was perfected, Plaintiff allegedly served a written notice on Defendants

4

to quit within three days. Id. at 10. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant unlawful detainer

5

suit in state court, and summons was issued. (Not. of Removal at 8.) On August 28, 2017,

6

Defendant Walter Harrell removed the action to federal court on the grounds that it presents a

7

federal question. (Id. at 2.)

8
9

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court is presumed to lack
jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may

12

remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at

13

the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly

14

construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031,

15

1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

16

removal in the first instance,” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor

17

of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that

18

federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See id. at 566-67.

19

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question

20

or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179,

21

1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil

22

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

23

Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that

24

the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either

25

because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to

26

relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute

27

between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,

28

463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal
2

1

defense . . . , even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v.

2

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).
III.

3
4
5

DISCUSSION

Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action from state court on the grounds that the
district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

6

A.

7

Defendant claims that a federal question exists because Plaintiff violated the federal Real

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). (Not. of Removal at 2.) Defendant purports to

9

bring a lawsuit against Plaintiff based on this violation. Id. Defendant’s counterclaims in an

10

unlawful detainer action, however, are irrelevant for purposes of determining federal question

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule prevents the Court from considering any additional

12

claims, such that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by adding claims or

13

defenses to a notice of removal. See Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582

14

F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009); see also McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th

15

Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit removal).

16

Accordingly, Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff violated RESPA does not establish federal question

17

jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, Defendant’s contention that there are federal questions at issue in

18

this litigation is misplaced.

19

Lastly, the limited scope of unlawful detainer proceedings precludes cross-complaints or

20

counterclaims. See Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal. 2d 620, 626-27 (1963). Thus, to the extent that

21

Defendants’ assertions could be contained in any such filing, they would, nonetheless, fail to

22

introduce a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

23

B.

Diversity Jurisdiction

24

District courts also have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “where the matter in

25

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between .

26

. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When federal subject-matter jurisdiction is

27

predicated on diversity of citizenship, complete diversity must exist between the opposing parties.

28

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978). Under the forum defendant
3

1

rule, “a civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be

2

removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the

3

State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, Plaintiff’s citizenship is

4

unknown, and Defendant is a citizen of California. (Not. of Removal at 2.) Thus, the forum

5

defendant rule applies, and the action is not removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See

6

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
IV.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with
the recommendation that the action be REMANDED to state court for further proceedings. The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

12

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.

13

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

14

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS

15

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

16
17

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: September 1, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4