US Bank National Association v. Silva

Filing 18

ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 6 Motion to Remand (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/15/2013: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (ofr, COURT STAFF).

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

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS
TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS ARM
TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-10

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
ALFRED SILVA, and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 13-CV-00364
ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND
(Re: Docket No. 6)

On January 30, 2013, Defendant Alfred Silva (“Silva”) removed this case from Santa Clara

17
18

County Superior Court. Plaintiffs US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Arm

19

Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-10 (“Plaintiffs”) brought an unlawful

20

detainer action against Defendants in state court, and Defendants removed the case to federal court

21

on the basis of presenting a defense or claims under The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12

22

U.S.C. § 5220. The parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction.1

23
Federal courts are limited in their jurisdiction to either (1) diversity cases where citizens of

24
25

two different states have a dispute involving an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000 or (2)

26
27
1

28

See Docket Nos. 7, 16; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636.
1

Case No.: 13-00364
ORDER

1

federal questions where the cause of action - not the defense - “arises under” federal law.2 The

2

parties have not alleged diversity, nor does the cause of action plead in the complaint – unlawful

3

detainer – arise under federal law. The court also notes that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure

4

Act does not provide a cause of action for tenants.3

5
6

Defendant only argues that the case should be retained because he is planning to file
another action, Farah v. Wells Fargo, which should be related to this case. He argues Farah v.

7
8
9

Wells Fargo will involve causes of action for fraud and deceptive business practices, which invoke
a federal question. But even if a relation could save an otherwise infirm claim, Defendant has

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

provided no proof that such a case has been filed, and no motion to relate or consolidate has been

11

made. This court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

12
13

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that this case be remanded to Santa Clara County
Superior Court.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated: March 15, 2013

17

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

27

3

28

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 154 (1908).

See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Case No. 09-6096 PVT, 2010 WL 2179885
(N.D. Cal. May 26, 2010).
2

Case No.: 13-00364
ORDER