OneWest Bank, FSB v. Durta et al

Filing 6

ORDER: This action is remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/13/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (Certified copy: Calif Superior Court, San Diego County) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ONEWEST BANK, FSB,

CASE NO. 15cv00915-WQH-JLB

11

Plaintiff,
vs.
TAMARA E. DUTRA; DANIEL
MALONEY; JIMI DUTRA; and
DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

ORDER

12
13
14

Defendant.

15 HAYES, Judge:
16

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff OneWest Bank, FSB commenced this action by

17 filing a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer in San Diego County Superior Court, where
18 it was assigned case number 37-2014-00034883-CL-UD-CTL. (ECF No. 1 at 7). The
19 Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to possession of real property located at
20 11962 Dapple Court, San Diego, California 92128. The Complaint asserts a claim for
21 unlawful detainer under California law. On January 20, 2015, Defendants Tamara
22 Dutra, Daniel Maloney, and Jimi Dutra, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal in
23 Southern District of California Case Number 15cv00110-WQH-JLB. See S.D. Case
24 No. 15cv00110-WQH-JLB, ECF No. 1. On January 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion
25 to remand. Id. ECF No. 4. On March 10, 2015, the Court issued an Order, granting the
26 motion to remand because Defendants failed to file an opposition. Id. ECF No. 7.
27

On April 24, 2015, Defendants filed a second notice of removal, and a new case

28 number was assigned. (ECF No. 1). The notice of removal pertains to the same
-1-

15cv00915-WQH-JLB

1 Complaint as the notice of removal filed in Case Number 15cv00110-WQH-JLB.
2

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on

3 either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

“[T]he

4 defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
5 Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airline, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). “The
6 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded
7 complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
8 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.... [T]he
9 existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction.”
10 Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation and
11 citation omitted). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the
12 right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas, 553 F.3d at
13 1244 (citation omitted).
14

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction stated in the notice of removal is that

15 Defendants have a defense to the Complaint based upon Plaintiff’s alleged failure to
16 comply with a federal statute. However, “the existence of a defense based upon federal
17 law is insufficient to support [federal] jurisdiction.” Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183. The
18 Court finds that the notice of removal does not adequately state a basis for federal
19 subject-matter jurisdiction.
20

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for lack of

21 subject-matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the County of San
22 Diego, where it was originally filed and assigned case number 37-2014-00034883-CL23 UD-CTL.
24 DATED: May 13, 2015
25
26

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-

15cv00915-WQH-JLB