Rae et al v. Brew et al

Filing 12

ORDER REMANDING CASE. The Clerk shall remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court and close the file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD

BARBARA THOMEN, et. al.,

11

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Plaintiff(s),

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
MARCO BREW, et. al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

/

16

I.

17

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Marco Brew and Maritza Brew (collectively, “Defendants”) removed the instant

18

unlawful detainer action filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by Plaintiffs Patricia Rae and

19

Barbara Thomen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). See Docket Item No. 1. According to the state court

20

Complaint, Plaintiffs, who are the owner and agent of residential property rented to Defendants, seek

21

possession of the property upon expiration of a fixed term lease as well as unpaid rents. See id., at

22

Ex. 1.

23

As is its obligation, the court has reviewed this action to determine whether federal

24

jurisdiction exists. See Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). It does not.

25

Accordingly, this action will be remanded to the state court from which it originated.
II.

26
27
28

DISCUSSION

Removal jurisdiction is a creation of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592
F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely
1
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

from the statutory authorization of Congress.”). Only those state court actions that could have been

2

originally filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise

3

expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

4

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.”); see also

5

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally

6

could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by defendant.”).

7

Accordingly, the removal statute provides two basic ways in which a state court action may be

8

removed to federal court: (1) the case presents a federal question, or (2) the case is between citizens

9

of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b).
The Notice of Removal reveals that Defendants have removed this action based on diversity.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

As noted, federal courts have original jurisdiction on this ground only where (1) opposing parties are

12

citizens of different states and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

13

But even if these two elements are met, removal based on diversity is not permitted if a defendant in

14

the case is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action, even if the

15

opposing parties are diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

16

Here, removal is improper based on diversity jurisdiction because this case was originally

17

filed in a California state court and Defendants, as they readily admit, are citizens of California. See

18

Docket Item No. 1. Thus, even assuming the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy

19

requirement is met (which it is not), 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) prohibits removal by Defendants on this

20

basis.1
III.

21

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this

22
23

ORDER

action.

24
25
26
27
28

1

It is also worth noting that unlawful detainer claims themselves do not arise under federal
law and, therefore, cannot support federal-question jurisdiction either. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg.
Assoc. v. Lopez, No. C 11-00451 WHA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44818, at *1, 2011 WL 1465678
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011); GMAC Mortg. LLC v. Rosario, No. C 11-1894 PJH, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 53643, at *2, 2011 WL 1754053 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley,
No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130517, at *2, 2010 WL 4916578 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 22, 2010).
2
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

Accordingly, the Clerk shall remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court and close

2

the file.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: December 31, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05762 EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE