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)

Download PDF
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

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?