BankUnited v. Carranza

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 4 Motion to Remand (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing) (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

BANKUNITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRMA CARRANZA, AND DOES 1-10,
INCLUSIVE
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-03728-LHK
ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL
DETAINER ACTION TO SANTA
CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

16
Irma Carranza (“Defendant”) has filed a notice of removal of her Santa Clara County
17
Superior Court unlawful detainer action (in which she is a Defendant) to this Court. See ECF No.
18
1. BankUnited has moved to remand the case to state court claiming that this Court lacks subject
19
matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 4 & 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds
20
thatDefendants’ motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion
21
hearing set for December 1, 2011 is VACATED.
22
In the case of a removed action, if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court
23
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1447(c). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See
25
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009).
26
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
27
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-03728-LHK
ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

1

treaties of the United States.”1 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law, if based on

2

the “well-pleaded complaint,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery

3

Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1271 (2009).
A review of the original complaint filed in state court discloses no federal statutory or

4
5

constitutional question. An unlawful detainer cause of action such as the one asserted here does

6

not raise a federal question. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

7

8018, 2011 WL 204322, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.

8

App. 3d 162, 168, 136 Cal. Rptr. 596 (1977) (remanding unlawful detainer action to state court

9

based on lack of federal question jurisdiction); Partners v. Gonzalez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

95714, at * 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (same). Moreover, it is well-settled that a case may not

11

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. See Franchise Tax Bd. v.

12

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). Thus, to the extent Ms. Carranza’s

13

defenses or counterclaims to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal

14

law, those allegations do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the unlawful detainer action is REMANDED to Santa Clara County Superior

15
16

Court.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 23, 2011

20

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Nor has diversity jurisdiction been established. For one, Plaintiffs’ original complaint demands
$10,000, less than the amount-in-controversy requirement. Moreover, it appears as though Ms.
Carranza is a citizen of California, the state in which the original action was brought, and thus
removal is not proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
2
Case No.: 11-CV-03728-LHK
ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION