Federal National Mortgage Association v. Areguin

Filing 6

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte adopting 3 Report and Recommendations and remanding case. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

13

Case No. C-15-01751 RMW

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
REMANDING CASE TO STATE
COURT

OFELIA AREGUIN, et al.,
[Re: Docket No. 3]

16

Defendant.

17
18

On May 29, 2014 plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) filed a

19

complaint alleging an unlawful detainer claim against defendant Ofelia Areguin and several

20

unknown Doe defendants (collectively, “defendants”) in the Superior Court of California, County of

21

Monterey. See Dkt. No. 1-1. Maria Elena Cohara, an interested party with unclear standing,

22

subsequently removed the action to federal court on April 17, 2015. 1 Id. On April 20, 2015, the

23

magistrate judge ordered that the case be reassigned to a district court judge. Dkt. No. 3. The

24

magistrate also issued a report and recommendation that the court remand the action to state court

25

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The case is now before the undersigned.

26
27
1

28

Cohara has twice before improperly removed this matter to federal court. In both cases, the action
was remanded to state court. See Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Areguin, Case No. 14-03248 (N.D. Cal.,
Dec. 16, 2014); Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Areguin, Case No. 15-01025 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 24, 2015).

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Case No. 15-01751-RMW
VN/EDB

-1-

1
2
3

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and there being no objections filed, the court
adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full.
The court does not have jurisdiction over this case. The complaint alleges a state cause of
action for unlawful detainer, and states no federal claim. Nor is there diversity jurisdiction.

5

Diversity jurisdiction requires an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

6

On its face, the complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. The fact

7

that the property at issue may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. See MOAB Inv. Grp., LLC

8

v. Moreno,Case No. 14-0092, 2014 WL 523092, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell Real

9

Estate Inv. LLC v. Bracho, Case No. 12-02774, 2012 WL 2906762, at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2012).

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

If Fannie Mae were to prevail on its claim, “liability [would] be measured by the fair rental value of

11

the property for the time [defendants] unlawfully occupied it.” Bank United v. Peters, No. C-1756

12

PJH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54884, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2011).

13

Because the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim, the court hereby REMANDS the

14

case to the Monterey County Superior Court. Cohara is advised future attempts to remove this

15

matter may result in sanctions.

16

Dated: June 1, 2015

17

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REMANDING CASE
Case No. 15-01751-RMW
VN/EDB

-2-