Federal National Mortgage Association v. Anderson et al, No. 1:2015cv00825 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Remand Sua Sponte this 1 Case to Tulare County Superior Court, Visalia Division; ORDER Granting 2 IFP Application signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/05/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 6/25/2015.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 Case No. 1: 15-cv-00825-LJO-BAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMAND SUA SPONTE THIS CASE TO TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, VISALIA DIVISION v. WILLIAM F. ANDERSON, JENNIFER ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION B. ANDERSON, Defendants. / 15 16 17 Defendant William F. Anderson (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, filed this removal action on 18 June 1, 2015. (Doc. 1.) The underlying complaint is an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff 19 Federal National Mortgage Association. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons stated below, the Court lacks 20 subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action, and therefore recommends this case be 21 remanded to the Tulare County Superior Court, Visalia Division. DISCUSSION 22 23 A. IFP Request 24 Defendant, appearing pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on June 1, 2015. 25 (Doc. 2). A review of Defendant’s application reveals that he has made the requisite showing under 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, his application to 27 proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28 1 1 B. 2 3 4 Legal Standard 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. Catepillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). The removal statute provides: 5 Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, 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 defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 6 7 8 9 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 10 A removing party must file a notice of removal of a civil action within 30 days of receipt of a 11 copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts 12 resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 13 1992). The removing party bears the burden to prove propriety of removal. Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 14 443 F.3d 676, 683–685 (9th Cir.2006); Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 15 Cir.2004) (“the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). A 16 district court may remand an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in 17 the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 18 C. This Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Claims 19 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction 20 Defendant alleges that removal is proper based on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) 21 Defendant argues that federal question jurisdiction exists because the Notice of Occupants to Vacate 22 Premises failed to comply with the Tenants at Foreclosure Act. 12 U.S.C. §5220. (Doc. 1, ¶8.) 23 Defendant contends that federal question jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff’s right to recovery is 24 dependent upon Defendant’s rights under federal law. (Doc. 1, ¶10.) 25 District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 26 laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Determination of federal question jurisdiction 27 “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 28 when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” 2 1 Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish “either 2 that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that (2) plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends 3 on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An 4 Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). The complaint states a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Doc. 1, p. 5.1 Claims for 5 6 unlawful detainer arise under state law, not federal law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. 7 LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D.Cal.2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly the province of state 8 court”); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at * 2 9 (C.D.Cal.2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is 10 purely a matter of state law”). Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 11 because the complaint does not contain a federal question. Defendant’s position is that he raises a federal question. His challenge to the complaint is that 12 13 the notice was inadequate and that the Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue. (See Doc. 1, Demurrer, p.15.) 14 However, any purported federal law defense or counterclaim is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over 15 Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2005) (“A 16 federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the 17 defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”). Thus, Defendant 18 fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction despite his argument that he is challenging the notice 19 pursuant to federal statutes. 20 2. Diversity Jurisdiction 21 Federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 22 exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1332. Jurisdiction under Section 1332 requires complete diversity, so each plaintiff must be diverse 24 from each defendant. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 25 26 27 28 1 A complaint for unlawful detainer is a very specific action. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 1161 a. It exists to provide a landlord with a remedy of a speedy eviction. Childs v. Eltinge, 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 853, 105 Cal.Rptr. 864 (Cal.Ct.App.1973) (affirming that “the very purpose of this statutory, summary procedure, [is] to afford an expeditious and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld by tenants”). A defendant generally may not challenge the plaintiff's title as a defense to the unlawful detainer action. Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. 3 1 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). In an unlawful detainer action, “the right to possession alone [is] involved- 2 not title to the property.” See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10–05478 PJH, 2011 WL 3 204322, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). 4 Here, Plaintiff does not claim damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount. The Complaint 5 for Unlawful Detainer does not request monetary damages, and the relief requested is limited to 6 restitution of the property. Doc. 1, p. 7. As Plaintiff does not claim damages in excess of $75,000, 7 Defendant has the burden of showing that more than $75,000 is in controversy. Sanchez v. 8 Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996) (A defendant “bears the burden of actually 9 proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”) 10 Here, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In unlawful detainer actions, the 11 right to possession of the property is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiff may collect only 12 damages that are incident to that unlawful possession. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 13 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (quoting Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 170 (1977)). The unlawful 14 detainer complaint does not seek anywhere near $75,000. Thus, the amount in controversy fails to 15 establish diversity jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER 16 17 For the reasons discussed above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, 18 and Defendant has failed to show that removal is proper. Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS 19 this case be REMANDED to the Tulare County Superior Court, Visalia Division. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, 21 pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. 22 Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to 23 these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 1 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 2 judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the 3 United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 4 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 5 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara June 5, 2015 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
