Brekenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Bonds et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 , 6 . ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BREKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND
2016, LLC,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
GREGORY BONDS, et al.,

14

Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6

Defendants.
15
Defendants Gregory and Wanda Bonds removed this unlawful detainer action from

16
17

Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. On December 7, 2017, the Court issued

18

an Order to Show Cause to the Bonds, requiring the Bonds to file a response addressing

19

why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

20

Dkt. No. 6. At that time, the Court also granted the Bonds’ application to proceed in forma

21

pauperis. Id. The Bonds responded to the Court’s order on December 29, 2017. Dkt. No.

22

11. The Court finds that response insufficient to retain this case in federal court.1
The Bonds do not follow up on their civil rights removal claim under 28 U.S.C.

23
24

§ 1443(1); rather, the Bonds’ response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause is an attempt to

25

convert this unlawful detainer case into a wrongful foreclosure case. The Bonds argue that

26

the Court has jurisdiction because their home was wrongfully foreclosed upon. But this is

27
28

1

All parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Dkt. Nos. 7, 10, 13.
Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC

1

not a wrongful foreclosure case, and the Court will not entertain such arguments here.

2

Thus, because the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court

3

REMANDS this unlawful detainer case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. In addition,

4

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Brekenridge’s motion to remand this case. Dkt. No. 9. The

5

Court does not award costs or expenses to Brekenridge as a result of this improper

6

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). However, the Court cautions the Bonds that if they

7

improperly re-remove this case to federal court they may be subject to paying

8

Brekenridge’s costs and expenses incurred as a result of the removal. Id.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: January 10, 2018

13

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC

2