Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Fuentes et al
Filing
11
ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/2/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WELLS FARGO BANK,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. C 12-03564 JSW
v.
HELEN BUSTAMANTE, et al.,
ORDER OF REMAND
Defendants.
/
14
15
Defendant Helen Bustamante removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. This
16
Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack
17
of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[A]ny civil action brought in a State
18
court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
19
removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the United States for the district and division
20
embracing the place where such action is pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers
21
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However,
22
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
23
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action originally filed in state court may be removed to
24
federal court only if the district court could have exercised jurisdiction over such action if
25
initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
26
(1987). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party
27
seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also
28
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
1
Moreover, a court must construe the removal statute strictly and reject jurisdiction if
2
there is any doubt regarding whether removal was proper. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480,
3
1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
4
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”)
5
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-
recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal
8
jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint
9
rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law
10
creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution
11
For the Northern District of California
pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule
7
United States District Court
6
of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 27-28.
12
The State Court action is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law does not
13
create the cause of action. Moreover, the Court concludes that the claim will not necessarily
14
depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiff need not
15
prove compliance with the federal law relied upon by Defendant to establish their claim. See,
16
e.g., Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005).
17
Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the
18
complaint gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question,
19
even if the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463
20
U.S. at 10, 14; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not
21
be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-
22
emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties
23
concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original).
24
Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter, and
25
it HEREBY REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
the County of Placer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785
2
(9th Cir. 1992).
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: August 2, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
HELEN BUSTAMANTE et al,
Defendant.
/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Case Number: CV12-03564 JSW
12
13
14
15
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on August 2, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
19
Alberto B. Fuentes
Helen Bustamante
Jimmy Lopez
5141 Ashley Wood Drive
Granite Bay, CA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: August 2, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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?
