Community Fund, LLC v. Burgess
Filing
12
ORDER REMANDING CASE., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 8/29/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
COMMUNITY FUND LLC,
12
13
Plaintiff(s),
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING IFP
APPLICATION, REMANDING CASE
TO SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA
RICARDO E. BURGESS,
15
No. C-12-4257 DMR
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
16
17
Defendant Ricardo Burgess removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 from Contra
18
Costa County Superior Court, where it was pending as a complaint for unlawful detainer against
19
Defendant. The Notice of Removal states that the Complaint presents a federal question such that
20
the case could have originally been filed in this Court. (Notice of Removal ¶ 6.) Defendant has also
21
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").
22
When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it “promptly,” and, “[i]f it clearly
23
appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be
24
permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). The parties
25
have consented to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), [Docket Nos. 7, 11], and
26
the court may enter judgment in the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D.
27
Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-1. For the reasons given below, the court grants Defendant's IFP application and
28
remands the case to state court.
1
2
I. IFP Application
Having evaluated Defendant's financial affidavit, the court finds that he has satisfied the
3
economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and therefore grants the IFP application.
4
The court next turns to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
5
6
II. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack
7
jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.
8
Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “[T]he presence or
9
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which
provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)
12
(quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). That rule applies equally to
13
evaluating the existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in federal court and in
14
removed cases. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 n.2
15
(2002). Relevant for purposes here, a federal question exists only when it is presented by what is or
16
should have been alleged in the complaint. Id. at 830. The implication of a federal question through
17
issues raised by an answer or counterclaim does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction.
18
Id. at 831.
19
According to Defendant’s Notice of Removal, a federal question arises because Plaintiff
20
Community Fund, LLC "failed to comply with The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act," 12
21
U.S.C. § 5220. (Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) The complaint that Plaintiff filed in Contra Costa County
22
Superior Court, however, simply alleges a state cause of action under unlawful detainer. (See
23
generally Compl.) Whatever Defendant intends to argue in response to this allegation does not give
24
rise to removal jurisdiction. Wells Fargo Bank v. Kravitz, No. 11-5698 LB, 2012 WL 216379, at *1
25
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2012) (remanding unlawful detainer case to state court because invoking
26
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not create federal question jurisdiction).
27
III. Conclusion
28
2
For these reasons, the court grants Defendant's IFP application and remands this action to the
Dated: August 29, 2012
6
NO
DONNA M. RYU na M. Ryu
on
United States Magistrate Judge
Judge D
RT
7
ER
H
8
LI
5
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
9
R NIA
4
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
FO
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
3
S
Contra Costa County Superior Court.1
RT
U
O
2
A
1
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
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
1
The court denies Plaintiff's pending motion to remand, [Docket No. 6], as moot.
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?
