IDA, 1 Inc et al v. Chen

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 3 Motion to Remand; granting 8 Motion to Shorten Time (decision without a hearing) (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

Case No. C-13-02355-RMW

IDA 1 INC.; KIP DREAM HOMES INC.;
ORCHID TERRACE INC.; 1 TO INFINITY
LLC, dba 1 TO INFINITY DB PLAN,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiffs,

14

[Re: Docket Nos. 3 and 8]

15

v.

16

JOHN HAN CHIANG CHEN, aka JOHN H.
CHEN; YANG HA CHEUNG; and Does 1 to
20, inclusive,

17
18

Defendants.

19
20

On April 3, 2013, plaintiffs IDA 1 Inc., Kip Dream Homes Inc., and Orchid Terrace Inc.

21

filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, alleging

22

unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a(b)(3). On the day that the

23

eviction trial was scheduled to take place in state court, May 24, 2013, defendants John H. Chen

24

and Yang Ha Cheung removed the case to federal court on the alleged basis of a federal question.

25

Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. On that same day, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this case

26

back to state court. Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 3. The issue is whether a federal question is

27

present in the Complaint that gives this court subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim.

28
ORDER REMANDING CASE
CASE NO. C-13-02355-RMW
ALG

-1-

1

For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and

2

remands.

3

I. BACKGROUND

4

On March 15, 0213, plaintiffs purchased the subject property located in Santa Clara

5

County at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924, and recorded

6

the Trustee's Deed in the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7, Dkt. No. 1, Ex.

7

A. On March 29, 2013, plaintiffs served a notice to quit on defendants, informing them that the

8

property was sold and requiring them to vacate the property within three days. Id. ¶ 8.

9

Defendants failed to vacate, and plaintiff filed an action for unlawful detainer requesting

10

"immediate restitution of possession of the subject property," damages, and costs in state court.

11

Id. ¶ 10. On the day of trial, more than thirty days after service of the complaint, defendants

12

removed this action to federal court on the alleged basis of a federal question. On the same day,

13

plaintiffs filed the present motion to remand. Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting an

14

expedited decision on its motion for remand.

15

II. ANALYSIS

16

Plaintiffs argue that defendants' notice of removal is both untimely and improper on its

17

face. Defendants do not contest the fact that their removal was outside of the statutory thirty day

18

timeframe for removal. Defendants simply argue that they did not intend to waive the right to

19

remove. Defendants contend that plaintiffs' unlawful detainer action arises under the Protecting

20

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 and that a federal question exists "as to

21

whether there were violations of federal RESPA laws by the foreclosing parties." Opp'n 3-4, Dkt.

22

No. 13.

23

The court agrees with plaintiffs that defendants' removal is both untimely and improper on

24

its face, and is a clear attempt to delay the state court unlawful detainer trial. Defendants filed a

25

notice of removal twenty days after the statutory deadline had passed, offering no explanation for

26

the late filing. This alone warrants remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Moreover, no federal question

27

exists that gives rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. Contrary to defendants' unfounded

28

assertions, plaintiffs' unlawful detainer action states a claim only under California Code of Civil
ORDER REMANDING CASE
CASE NO. C-13-02355-RMW
ALG

-2-

1

Procedure § 1161a(b)(3), which does not raise any embedded federal question. See Deutsche

2

Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Baltazar, No. 12-2281 (PJH), 2012 WL 2159414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June

3

13, 2012); Wells Fargo Bank v. Kravits, No. 11-05698 (LB), 2012 WL 216379, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

4

Jan. 24, 2012) ("Plaintiff correctly argues that its complaint asserts only a cause of action for

5

unlawful detainer pursuant [to] . . . section 1161a(b)(3). . . . [I]n these circumstances, the PTFA

6

does not create federal-question jurisdiction.").

7

Remand is proper because there is no federal question at issue in this case and the court

8

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because both parties will benefit from an

9

expedient order on plaintiffs' motion to remand, the court deems this motion proper for a decision

10

without a hearing, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to remand on the papers.

11
12
13

III. CONCLUSION
The court grants plaintiffs' motion to remand and hereby remands the case to the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

14
15
16

Dated: June 6, 2013
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REMANDING CASE
CASE NO. C-13-02355-RMW
ALG

-3-