Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Alvarado et.al.

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING 12 MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Hon. Edward J. Davila on 9/30/11. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03061-EJD

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

Plaintiff,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
JESSIE TORRES
[Re: Docket Item No. 12]

14
Defendant.
15
16

/
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services LLC’s motion to remand the

17

above-captioned action to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. For the reasons

18

set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

19
20

I. BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora”) filed this unlawful detainer case in Santa

22

Clara County Superior Court on or about October 21, 2010. The complaint named as defendants all

23

tenants of the subject property at 37A Union St., San Jose, CA: the property’s former owners, Juan

24

A. and Maria L. Alvarado, and up to five unknown residents sued as Does. Jessie Torres, a tenant

25

residing on the property, was served with the summons and the complaint.

26

Asserting diversity jurisdiction, Torres previously removed the case to this court, where it

27

was assigned case number 5:11-CV-586. On the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

28

Paul Grewal, Judge Jeremy Fogel remanded the case to Superior Court because the 28 U.S.C. § 1332
1
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03061-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

1

requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 was plainly not met. Torres again

2

removes the case to federal court, this time asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, claiming

3

that the case raises a necessary federal question under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act

4

(“PTFA”) of 2009. Once again, Aurora moves to remand the action on the grounds that this court

5

lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

6
7

II. ANALYSIS

8

Federal question jurisdiction requires that a federal issue appear on the face of the well-

74, 75–76 (1914); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830

11
For the Northern District of California

pleaded complaint; a defense grounded in federal law does not suffice. Taylor v Anderson, 234 U.S.

10

United States District Court

9

(2002). The only relevant exception to this rule arises when the regulatory effect of a federal law is

12

so broad as to completely preempt any related state law causes of action. See Metropolitan Life

13

Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987). The removing party bears the burden of showing that

14

removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

15

Aurora’s complaint pleads only one cause of action, which is based entirely on California

16

law. Torres’s PTFA defense does not confer federal question jurisdiction upon this court. Moreover,

17

federal courts have uniformly concluded that the PTFA does not preempt state law unlawful detainer

18

actions. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Lofton, 4:11-CV-3697-LB, 2011 WL 3739547 (N.D.

19

Cal. Aug. 24, 2011); OP Development, Inc. v. Pascal, 1:11-CV-1363-LJO, 2011 WL 3687636 (E.D.

20

Cal. Aug. 23, 2011); BDA Investment Properties LLC v. Sosa, 11-CV-3684-GAF (RZX), 2011 WL

21

1810634 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011); SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 10-CV-2108-MMA (NLS), 2010 WL

22

4809661 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010). Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

23

case and must remand the action to state court.

24

/

25

/

26

/

27

/

28

/
2
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03061-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

1

III. ORDER

2

Good cause therefor appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is

3

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. The clerk is

4

directed to transmit the file and close the case.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: September 30, 2011
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03061-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND