Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Alvarado

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)

Download PDF
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

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?