Bay Valley Professional Center, LLC v. Schmidt et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 6 Motion to Remand. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/2/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tsh, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

BAY VALLEY PROFESSIONAL
CENTER, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
REMAND

v.
JAMES M. SCHMIDT, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-02067-BLF

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Remanding Removed Action to State

14

Court, filed on May 10, 2014. Plaintiff seeks to remand the above-captioned matter, an Unlawful

15

Detainer Action, on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

16

Complaint. Plaintiff further seeks costs associated with the filing of the Motion for Remand. The

17

Court finds that this Motion can be decided without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

18

1. Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the relevant case law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

19

Motion for Remand, but does not order Defendants to pay the costs associated with the filing of

20

this Motion.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant with a three-day Notice to Quit, and
Defendants did not vacate the property. Thereafter, on March 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Unlawful
Detainer Action in Santa Clara Superior Court. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on May 6,
2014, alleging that Plaintiff had failed to comply with a federal statute, S. 896 § 702, which
Defendants contend entitled them, as preexisting tenants in a foreclosed home, 90 days’ notice to
vacate their property. Defendants’ sole reason for removal is that their defense to the Unlawful
Detainer Action sounds in federal law. Defendants do not allege that the parties meet the federal
requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

1

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and are “presumed to lack subject

2

matter jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears.” Dragovich v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury,

3

764 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2011). When an action is removed to federal district court

4

from state court, the district court has “broad discretion” to remand the removed claim or cause of

5

action. 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (noting that if a court finds “that

6

removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand”).

7

Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a

8

Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only

9

state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

court by the Defendant.”). It is “settled law” that cases “may not be removed to federal court on
the basis of a federal defense.” Id.at 393 (emphasis in original). This is true even when the federal
defense is one that can be readily anticipated by the Plaintiff. Franchise Tax Bd. of Calif. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust of S. Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). The burden is on the
party removing the action to show that removal is proper. See, e.g., Moore-Thomas v. Alaska
Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants make no argument in their Opposition to this Motion that Removal was proper,

16

and instead oppose the Motion on the basis that one resident of the home, Daniel Santos, was not
17

properly served with the Motion for Remand.1 Defendants do not meet their burden to show that

18
removal was proper.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Though removal was improper, the Court declines to impose costs upon Defendants as
requested by Plaintiff. Granting the pro se Defendants every benefit of the doubt in their filing, the
Court does not believe that the removing party had no objectively reasonable basis to seek
removal. Defendants applied the law incorrectly, but the Court makes no adverse inference as to a
dilatory or tactical motive behind Defendants’ Notice of Removal. Defendants are instructed,
however, not to seek removal of the action in the future based upon a federal defense to their
eviction. This case is properly adjudicated in state court, as originally filed, and as such the Court

26
27
28

1

This argument fails for one reason: despite not receiving service of the Motion for Remand, Mr.
Santos timely joined the Opposition to the Motion, (ECF 14 at 1), and the Court thereby finds no
prejudice against Mr. Santos.
2

1

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and hereby REMANDS this case to the Santa Clara

2

County Superior Court for adjudication.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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