-JLT Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Kimble et al, No. 1:2011cv00605 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to REMAND and to DISMISS the mattersigned by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/6/2011. Objections to F&R due by 6/21/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

Download PDF

-JLT Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Kimble et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHUCK KIMBLE AND HELENE KIMBLE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________ ) Case No.: 1:11-cv-00605 LJO JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND TO DISMISS THE MATTER 17 18 Currently before the Court is a motion to remand this action to the Kern County Superior 19 Court, filed by Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Plaintiff”) on April 14, 2011. (Doc. 4.) For the 20 following reasons, the Court recommends the motion to remand be GRANTED. 21 I. Factual and Procedural History 22 Plaintiff purchased real property described as 725 West Coral Avenue, Ridgecrest, California 23 93555 at a foreclosure sale on December 17, 2010. (Doc. 1 at 14-15, 18-20.) On December 23, 24 2010, Plaintiff served Chuck Kimble, Helene Kimble, and Does 1 through 5 (collectively, 25 “Defendants”) with “a written notice requiring [them] to vacate and deliver up possession of the 26 Property to plaintiff within 3 days after service of said notice,” but they failed to do so and remain in 27 possession. (Id. at 15, 21-23.) On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff sued Defendants for unlawful detainer. 28 (Id. at 14.) In the unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff sought “restitution and possession of the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 property,” “damages in the amount of $30.00 per day from December 27, 2010, and for each day that 2 defendants continue in possession of the Property through the date of entry of judgment,” and “ costs 3 for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.” (Id. at 16.) Notably, on the 4 caption of the complaint, Plaintiff asserted the “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (Id. at 5 14.) 6 In January 2011, Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint for unlawful detainer based 7 upon an allegedly “inappropriate and defective” Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises. (Id. at 5- 8 11.) The Superior Court for the County of Kern overruled the demurrer. (Id. at 3.) On April 14, 9 2011, Defendants filed a notice of removal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 10 1446, arguing “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ demurrer, a pleading, 11 depends on the determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 12 1-3.) 13 II. Removal to the Federal District Court 14 Title 28, § 1441 of the United States Code permits a defendant to remove “any civil action 15 brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 16 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A defendant asserting removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 has the burden of 17 establishing removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 18 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. 19 Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). In order to meet this burden, a defendant 20 asserting federal question jurisdiction must show the civil action arises “under the Constitution, laws, 21 or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 22 The removal statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, Boggs v. Lewis, 863 23 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Insurance Co., 765 F.2d 24 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985)), and if the right of removal is doubtful, federal jurisdiction must be 25 rejected, Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th 26 Cir. 1979)). In addition, if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, 27 the case must be remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. 28 Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 2 1 2 III. Discussion Defendants assert subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 3 1446 because “the Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises[] failed to comply with The Protecting 4 Tenants at Foreclosure Act [12 U.S.C. § 5220].” (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) However, whether federal question 5 jurisdiction exists is subject to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 6 539 U.S. 1, 12 (2003) (citing Caterpillar Inc. V. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Under the 7 well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 8 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 9 In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint is based upon a single unlawful detainer cause of action. 10 (Doc. 1 at 14.) Unlawful detainer actions arise under state law alone and are therefore not subject to 11 federal jurisdiction. OneWest Bank FSB v. Ignacio, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67012, at *2-5 (E.D. Cal. 12 July 2, 2010); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130517, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 13 Nov. 22, 2010) (citing Indymac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 8421, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)). Although Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff failed to comply 15 with the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act may be raised as a defense in this unlawful detainer 16 action, “[a] federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, 17 even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.” 18 Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. 19 Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983)). Consequently, Defendants’ 20 argument that federal jurisdiction is present based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 21 Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act fails to establish jurisdiction. 22 IV. Findings and Recommendation 23 24 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS: 25 1. The motion to remand the matter be GRANTED; 26 2. The matter be REMANDED th the Kern County Superior Court; and 27 3. Because the order remanding this matter to state court concludes this case, the Clerk 28 of the Court is ordered to close this matter. 3 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 3 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 4 fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and 5 serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant 7 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: June 6, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.