Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Farmer

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers GRANTING 6 Motion to Remand; and DENYING Request for Attorneys' Fees. Case remanded to the Superior Court of CA, County of San Mateo. The Court VACATES the hearing set for August 21, 2012. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, on 08/09/12 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012) Modified on 8/10/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITE STATES D ISTRICT CO ED OURT 4 NORTHE DISTRIC OF CALIF ERN CT FORNIA 5 6 7 UTSCHE BAN NATIONA TRUST NK AL DEU COM MPANY, 8 Plaintiff, C Case No.: 12 2-CV-3455 Y YGR O RDER GRAN NTING MOTION OF PLAI INTIFF TO REMAND; AN DENYING REQUEST F ND G FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 9 vs. 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 JOSEPH FARME , ER 12 Defe endants. 13 This case was remov from the San Mateo County Sup ved e perior Court where it was pending as s 14 15 an unlawful deta u ainer action against pro se Defendan Joseph Far nt armer. Mr. F Farmer remo oved this acti ion 16 purs suant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 invoking this Court’s federal ques U 41 t stion jurisdic ction under 2 U.S.C. § 28 17 1331 on the basis that he int tends to raise a defense u e under the Pr rotecting Ten nants from F Foreclosure 18 Act (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et seq 1 § q. On July 10, 2012, Pl laintiff filed a motion to remand on t grounds that Defend has faile the dant ed 19 20 stablish the existence of federal subj matter ju e f ject urisdiction. to es The Cou GRANTS the motion for remand b urt t f because no fe federal questi is presen in this ion nted 21 22 actio 1 on. 23 I. LEGAL STANDAR L RD 24 A defend may rem dant move a civil action filed in state cou if the actio originally could have d urt on y e 25 been filed in fed n deral court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Distr courts ha federal q rict ave question juri isdiction ove er 26 civil actions aris l sing under th Constituti laws or treaties of th United St he ion, he tates. 28 U.S § 1331. S.C. 27 1 28 Pur rsuant to Fede Rule of Civil Procedu 78(b) and Civil Local R 7-1(b), th Court finds that this eral C ure Rule he moti is appropr ion riate for decis sion without oral argument Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for o t. Aug 21, 2012. gust 1 Dist trict courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions betw h ween citizens of differen states wher s nt re 2 the amount in co a ontroversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). e 3 A plainti may seek to have a ca remande to the stat court if the district cou lacks iff k ase ed te e urt 4 juris sdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 14 447(c). The burden of es stablishing f federal jurisd diction is on the party 5 seek king removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F. 1115, 11 (9th Cir. 2004). The is a “stron . .3d 117 ere ng 6 pres sumption” ag gainst remov jurisdiction, with dou as to rem val ubts movability a resolved in favor of are 7 8 9 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 rem manding the case to state court. Math c heson v. Prog gressive Spe ecialty Ins. C 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 Co., d 0 (9th Cir. 2003); Gaus v. Mil Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 5 (9th Cir. 1992). h les. 0 566 . II. DISCUS SSION Defenda invoked this Court’s federal ques ant t stion jurisdic ction under 2 U.S.C. § 1331 on the 28 basi that his de is efense implic cates federal law. Specif fically, Defe endant allege that the no es otice to vaca ate faile to comply with the PT ed y TFA. The PTFA protect tenants wh ts hose residen nces are facin foreclosure. ng The PTFA is int tended to be used for pro otection in st court bu does not create a priva right of tate ut ate 14 actio or a basis for federal subject matt jurisdicti on. See Ban of New Yo v. Gueva on s ter nk ork ara-Martinez z, 15 C-11-5474 CW, 2012 WL 50077 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (hold , 5 ding that because the only possible 16 fede issue inv eral volved a defe fense under th PTFA, fe he ederal questi jurisdicti is lacking Aurora ion ion g); 17 18 19 20 Loan Services LLC v. Jessie Torres, C-1 L e 11-3061 EJD 2011 WL 4551458 (N Cal. Sep 30, 2011) D, N.D. pt. ) ting that othe courts con er nsidering this issue came to the same conclusion Thus, a d e e n). defense unde er (not the PTFA canno establish a basis for fe P ot ederal jurisdi iction. Cate erpillar Inc. v Williams, 482 U.S. 38 v. 86, 21 393 (1987) (“it is now settle law that a case may no be removed to federal court on th basis of a i ed ot l he 22 fede defense.”). Therefor the Court does not ha subject-m eral re, t ave matter jurisd diction over t action this 23 base upon the PTFA. ed P 24 Under th well-plead complaint rule, the f he ded federal quest tion must be presented b the e by 25 plain ntiff’s comp plaint. Vaden v. Discove Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Th complain asserts onl n ery 6 0 he nt ly 26 one state law cla for unlawful detaine it does no allege any federal clai whatsoev aim er; ot y im ver. Thus, 27 ther is no feder question jurisdiction. re ral j 28 2 Finally, there is no diversity juri d isdiction in th matter. P this Plaintiff’s C Complaint ind dicates that the t 1 2 amo ount demand does not exceed $10, ded ,000. As suc the amou in contro ch, unt oversy does n meet the not 3 juris sdictional threshold of $75,000.00 fo diversity j or jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C § 1441(b) & 1332(a). §§ 4 III. CONCL LUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, this action m be rema r fo t must anded. 6 Plaintiff Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 6, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s R f=s D Request for A Attorneys’ 7 Fees is DENIED. s The Cler of the Cou is directe to REMAN this action to the San Mateo Coun Superior rk urt ed ND n nty r 8 9 10 11 Cou urt. The Cler of Court is further dir rk i rected to forw ward certifie copies of this Order a all docke ed and et entr to the Cl ries lerk of the Sa Mateo Co an ounty Superi Court. ior Northern District of California United States District Court 12 This Ord terminate Dkt. No. 6. der es 6 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Date: August 9, 2012 9 __ __________ ___________ __________ __________ YVON GONZAL ROGERS NNE LEZ UNITED ST TATES DISTR RICT COURT JUDGE T 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?