Deutsche Bank National Trustee Company v. Cutlip

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATON OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE COUSINS AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/30/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUSTEE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8

v.

9

WILLIAM CUTLIP, et al.,

10

Case No. 16-cv-04255-BLF
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATON OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE COUSINS AND
REMANDING ACTION TO THE
SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

On August 30, 2016, Defendant William Cutlip filed an objection to the Report and
12
13
14
15

Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Nathanel M. Cousins remanding this unlawful
detainer action and denying Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF 9, 15.
The Court has reviewed and thoroughly considered Judge Cousins’ R&R and the arguments in
Cutlip’s objection. Finding the R&R correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in

16
every respect.
17
Defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating subject
18

matter jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Cousins’ R&R, Cutlip raises several objections

19
based on affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may allege under federal law. ECF 15.
20
However, [f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or
21

can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank,

22
556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Cutlip also claims that the action involves a
23
24

federal question because the action arises out of a federal land patent. Id. “Federal land patents . .
. [however,] do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction.” Virgin v. Cty. Of San Luis

25
Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569–70
26
(1912)). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
27
28

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Cutlip’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the

1
2
3
4
5

above-titled unlawful detainer action is REMANDED to Santa Clara Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

6
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
2