Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Downey 2004-ARS v. Ros et al

Filing 8

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 3 Ex Parte Motion to Remand Case and Denying as Moot Defendants' 2 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/18/2012. (cc:State Court)(knb)

1

2

12 Dei 13

2:23

3

4
DEPUTY

5

6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

12

CASE NO. 12-CV-01981 BEN (WVG)

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR DOWNEY
2004-AR2,

13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
EX PARTE MOTION TO
REMAND AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES

Plaintiff,
vs.

14

15
16

[ECF Nos. 2, 3]

MARIA L. ROS, an individual, DAVID
CRUZ, an individual, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.

17
18

On August 9, 2012, Defendants removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court.
19
ECF No.1. Four days later, Defendants filed a motion to consolidate this case with a different case
20
involving the

same

property,

Ros v.

Deutsche

Bank Nat '[ Trust

Co.,

Case No.

21
3: 12-cv-01929-BEN-WVG. ECF No.2. Defendants assert that the Court has jurisdiction over this

22
matter because the related cause of action involves a federal question. Plaintiff has filed an ex parte
23
motion to remand the case to state court based on lack ofjurisdiction. ECF No.3.
24
"Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed

25
to federal court by the defendant." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,392 (1987). "Absent
26
diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required." Id "The presence or absence of
27
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that
28
federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs
- 1-

12cv01981

1 properly pleaded complaint." Id
2

The only claim forreliefin this case is a state claim. See ECFNo. 1-3. Accordingly, the Court

3

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent Defendants' argument can be construed as a request

4 for this Court to assert supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I 367(a), it is unpersuasive.

5 WescomCredit Unionv. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203,2010 WL4916578, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)
6 (noting that the supplemental jurisdiction statute "does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over
7 free-standing state law claims that are related to a separate action over which the court has
8 jurisdiction").
9
10
11

Plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to state court.
Defendants' motion to consolidate is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED:
13

...

OCtOb,(~012

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 2-

12cv01981