U.S. Bank National Association v. Wilson

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/18/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY
CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE,
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10
11

JEFFREY-MERRITT: WILSON,

Case No. 16-cv-05503-BLF
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLOYD AND
REMANDING ACTION TO THE SAN
BENITO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
[Re: ECF 15, 20]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On October 17, 2016, Defendant Jeffrey-Merritt: Wilson filed an objection to the Report

14

and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remanding this forcible

15

entry and forcible detainer action. See ECF 15, 20. The Court has reviewed and thoroughly

16

considered Judge Lloyd’s R&R and the arguments in Wilson’s objection. Finding the R&R

17

correct, well reasoned, and thorough, the Court adopts it in every respect.

18

Defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating subject matter

19

jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Lloyd’s R&R, Wilson raises several objections based on

20

affirmative defenses or counterclaims that he may allege under federal law, including claims under

21

42 U.S.C. §1983, claims pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and a claim that Plaintiffs

22

violated the automatic stay in federal bankruptcy cases. ECF 20, at 6, 25–26. However, “[f]ederal

23

jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal

24

jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.

25

49, 60 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Wilson also claims that the action involves a federal

26

question because the action arises out of a federal land patent. ECF 20, at 12. “Federal land

27

patents . . . [however,] do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction.” Virgin v. Cty. Of

28

San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561,

1

569–70 (1912)). Wilson further claims that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the

2

“property has a value . . . well over $1,000,000.00.” ECF 20, at 24. However, as Judge Lloyd

3

stated, “forcible entry and forcible detainer actions do not involve the right to title to the property.

4

So, the fact that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant.” ECF 15, at 2

5

(citations omitted). Thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, the above-titled forcible entry and forcible detainer action is REMANDED to

6
7

the San Benito County Superior Court.1

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: October 18, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The Court notes that Wilson also requested the Court to join this action to Wilson v. Tobias, No.
16-cv-5419-DMR (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 22, 2016). ECF 20, at 29. The Court construes this
request as an improper motion to relate the cases pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12. Pursuant to Civil
L.R. 3-12(b), a party seeking to relate an action “must promptly file in the lowest-numbered case
an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related.” Regardless, Wilson’s
request is moot given this order remanding the action to state court.
2