Federal National Mortgage Association v. Matos et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF REMAND. Because the notice of removal does not show why this action was removable, it is REMANDED to the court from which it was removed. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/29/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(cc: San Diego County Superior Court, North County)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

CASE NO. 11cv2747-LAB (WMC)

12

ORDER OF REMAND
Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
BAXTER MATOS,
Defendant.

15
16

On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff FNMA filed an unlawful detainer action in the California

17

Superior Court for the County of San Diego seeking less than $10,000 in relief. Defendant

18

Matos filed a demurrer dated August 2 and asserting that Matos had been served on July

19

28. After that, on November 23, 2011, Matos filed a notice of removal, asserting federal

20

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or (b) because, he argues, his demurrer

21

raises federal questions.

22

The Court is obliged to examine its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, B.C. v.

23

Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999), and to remand any removed

24

action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Where doubt regarding the right

25

to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive

26

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the well-pleaded complaint

27

rule, federal question jurisdiction only exists when the complaint is based on federal law;

28

federal questions in defenses or counterclaims are insufficient. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

-1-

11cv2747

1

U.S. 49, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 1278 (2009). The complaint contains no federal claims;

2

here, the only “federal” questions are set forth in Matos’ demurrer. But even these are not

3

actually federal questions; rather, he merely alleges he was not properly served as required

4

under California law, and disputes the date of service.

5

Matos has not identified any other source of federal jurisdiction. The complaint

6

identifies FNMA as a California corporation, (Complaint, ¶ 1), and Matos has not disputed

7

this. The relationship between FNMA, the Plaintiff here, and the Congressionally-chartered

8

Federal National Mortgage Association is unclear. The California Secretary of State’s

9

website contains no entry for a corporation called the Federal National Mortgage

10

Association. But even assuming FNMA and the federally-chartered Federal National

11

Mortgage Association are one and the same, the burden falls on Matos, as the party

12

invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, to show this. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

13

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998) (“[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the

14

burden of establishing its existence.”) Furthermore, it is not clear that the participation of the

15

federally-chartered Federal National Mortgage Association as a party would give rise to

16

federal court jurisdiction See Fed’l Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Sandoval, 2011 WL 976708, slip op.

17

(E.D.Cal., March 16, 2011) (considering but rejecting federal subject matter jurisdiction over

18

removed unlawful detainer action, based on participation of Federal National Mortgage

19

Association as party); Fed’l Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Bahan, 2011 WL 2936021, slip op. at *5

20

(E.D.Cal., July 18, 2011) (noting lack of controlling precedent on this issue).

21
22
23
24

Because the notice of removal does not show why this action was removable, it is
REMANDED to the court from which it was removed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2011

25
26

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-

11cv2747