US Bank National Association v. Silva

Filing 21

AMENDED ORDER RE 6 MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on March 18, 2013. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

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
AMENDED 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
AMENDED 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. Defendant argues

7
8
9

Farah v. Wells Fargo will involve causes of action for fraud and deceptive business practices,
invoking a federal question.
Originally, the court noted Defendant had not filed a motion to relate. It has come to the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

court’s attention that a motion to relate was filed erroneously in Farah v. Wells Fargo but not the

12

present case.1 The motion to relate has now been correctly filed in the present case. Even with this

13
14

information, however, the court reiterates that a motion to relate cannot confer subject matter
jurisdiction on an otherwise infirm claim. A motion to relate is merely an administrative motion

15
16

that assigns cases involving the same or similar parties, property, transaction or events to the same

17

judge in the interests of judicial economy.2 As an administrative tool, relation cannot confer

18

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

19
20

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

21
22
23
24
2

25

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

3

26

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

27

1

See Farah v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 13-1127 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013).

28

2

See Civ. Local Rule 3-12.
2

Case No.: 13-00364
AMENDED ORDER

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2013

3

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 13-00364
AMENDED ORDER