Federal Home Mortgage Corporation et al v. Herrera
Filing
17
ORDER Remanding Case. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/2/2012. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REMANDING CASE
Plaintiff,
v.
RITA HERRERA, SANDRA RANGEL,
DANIEL GONZALEZ,
Defendants.
16
17
No. C 12-03320 CRB
FEDERAL HOME MORTGAGE CORP.,
/
Defendants Daniel Gonzalez, Rita Herrera, and Sandra Rangel removed this case from
state court on June 27, 2012. See dkt. 1. The case was reassigned on July 30, 2012. See dkt.
13. The Court notes that a Motion to Shorten Time re a Motion to Remand is already on file.
See dkt. 14. However, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral
argument or further briefing, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and REMANDS the case to
state court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a
district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
$75,00.00. The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking
1
removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus
2
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
3
Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
4
removal in the first instance.” Id. at 566. Further, a district court must remand the case to
5
state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the district court lacks subject
6
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
7
Upon review of the state court complaint attached to the Notice of Removal, it is
8
apparent to the Court that, indeed, it does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Federal
9
question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-pleaded
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
complaint. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).
11
The state court complaint here involves only a claim of unlawful detainer. Notice of
12
Removal Ex. 2. Therefore, no federal question is presented. See Wells Fargo Bank v.
13
Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v.
14
Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, based upon the face
15
of the well-pleaded complaint, which alleges that the amount in controversy “does not
16
exceed $10,000,” and indicates that Defendant is what is known as a local defendant
17
(residing in the State in which this action has been brought), there is also no diversity
18
jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal Ex. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Accordingly, the Case is
19
REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus.
20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), an order remanding a case may require payment of
21
“just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal.”
22
Plaintiff argues generally for the award of attorneys’ fees in its Motion to Shorten Time.
23
Mot. at 5.
24
“[A]bsent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the
25
removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital
26
Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005). “The appropriate test for awarding fees under § 1447(c)
27
should recognize the desire to deter removals sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation
28
and imposing costs on the opposing party, while not undermining Congress’s basic decision
2
1
to afford Defendants a right to remove as a general matter, when the statutory criteria are
2
satisfied.” Id. at 140. In this case, there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
3
Clearly established state and federal law unequivocally prohibit removal under the
4
circumstances of this case, as discussed above. Thus, the Court finds there was not an
5
objectively reasonable basis for removal. Moreover, and most egregiously, defendants have
6
removed this case twice already, and it has been remanded both times on identical grounds to
7
the grounds here. Mot. Exs. 2, 5. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for
8
attorneys’ fees. The Court orders Plaintiff to file a declaration detailing all fees incurred in
9
response to the Notice of Removal within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated: August 2, 2012
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\CRBALL\2012\3320\Order Remanding Case.wpd
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
