11767 Invierno Dr. Trust Dated 1/19/2018 v. Synnott et al

Filing 6

ORDER Granting 4 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/25/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Certified copy sent to Superior Court)(mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

37-02018-00010136-CL-UD-CTL

11

Case No.: 18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS
11767 INVIERNO DR. TRUST
DATED 01/19/2018, U.S.
FINANCIAL L.P., AS TRUSTEE,

12
13

Plaintiff,

14
15

ECF NO. 4

v.

16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

RICHARD SYNNOTT; APRIL
SYNNOTT; and DOES 1-10,
INCLUSIVE

17
18

Defendants.

19
20

Plaintiff Invierno Dr. Trust Dated 01/19/2018, U.S. Financial L.P., has filed a

21

motion to remand this case back to state court. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons

22

discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants

25

Richard Synott and April Synott in the Superior Court of the State of California,

26

County of San Diego, Central Division. (ECF No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff alleged a

27

cause of action of unlawful detainer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

28
1
18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

1

§ 1161. Id.

2

On March 22, 2018, Defendants removed the action to this court based on

3

federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice

4

which expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at

5

Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201.” (ECF No. 1).

6

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion to remand the case back to state

7

court, arguing lack of both diversity and federal question jurisdiction (ECF No. 4).

8

Defendants failed to file any response to Plaintiff’s motion.

9

II.

DISCUSSION

10

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction extends

11

over “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that

12

federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

13

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

14

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S.

15

1, 27-28 (1983). This rule makes a plaintiff the “master of his complaint” and allows

16

him to “avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.” Balcorta v.

17

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000).

18

Upon review of the complaint, it is clear that no federal question jurisdiction

19

exists. The unlawful detainer action filed against Defendants arises under state

20

law and does not require resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See

21

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lasoff, 2010 WL 669239 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010)

22

(holding that unlawful detainer action did not raise a federal question); HSBC Bank

23

USA, NA v. Valencia, 2010 WL 546721 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2010) (remanding

24

unlawful detainer action); Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Cencil, 2010 WL

25

2179778 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2010) (granting motion to remand unlawful detainer

26

action).

27
28
2
18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS

1

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand

3

this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 1 Further, “an

4

order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual

5

expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1447(c). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff just costs and actual expenses incurred as

7

a result of Defendants’ unsubstantiated removal. Barring a showing of good cause,

8

Defendants may not file for removal of this action again. If Defendants file for

9

removal without good cause, they may be sanctioned for contempt.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2018

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants do not argue that diversity jurisdiction exists, and there is no evidence that there is diversity of
citizenship.
3
18-cv-0599-BTM-NLS