E-Trade Bank v. Mainusch et al

Filing 11

ORDER REMANDING CASE.. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/6/2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2013)

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 16 E-TRADE BANK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) HAROLD E. MAINUSCH, LAURA M. ) MAINUSCH, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 12-CV-06439-LHK ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Defendants removed this action for unlawful detainer from the Santa Clara County Superior 17 Court on December 20, 2012. However, it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 18 over the removed action. Although Plaintiff has not moved to remand, this Court has a continuing 19 obligation to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears that jurisdiction may be 20 lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). 21 If a Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, that action must be remanded. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. 23 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). 24 In the notice of removal, Defendants assert that grounds for removal exist because their 25 principal claim for relief arises under federal law. However, a defendant may remove a case to 26 federal court only if “the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” 27 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). It is well- 28 settled that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. Id. at 14. 1 Case No.: 12-CV-06439-LHK ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION 1 Rather, “the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the 2 answer.’” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1086 (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. 3 Texaco Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974)). Because Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer 4 raises no federal claims, there appears to be no basis for removal and no subject matter jurisdiction 5 in this Court. See, e.g., Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322 6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011); Partners v. Gonzalez, C-10-02598 EDL, 2010 WL 3447678 (N.D. Cal. 7 Aug. 30, 2010). 8 9 Accordingly, the unlawful detainer action is hereby REMANDED to Santa Clara County Superior Court. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 6, 2013 12 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 12-CV-06439-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?