(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson et al, No. 2:2014cv01433 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/20/14 RECOMMENDING that this action be remanded to Napa County Superior Court. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1433 KJM DAD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VICKI ROBINSON; STEVE ROBINSON, Defendants. 16 17 By Notice of Removal filed June 16, 2014, this unlawful detainer action was removed 18 from the Napa County Superior Court by defendants Vicki Robinson and Steve Robinson, who 19 are proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all 20 purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 21 It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be “strictly 22 construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 23 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). See also Syngenta 24 Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque v. Placer 25 Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 26 is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 27 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking 28 removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) 1 1 (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). See also Provincial 2 Gov’t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. In addition, “the existence of federal jurisdiction 3 depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” 4 ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th 5 Cir. 2000). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks subject matter 6 jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 7 In removing this action, defendants assert that this court has original jurisdiction over the 8 action “in that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.” (Notice of Removal (Dkt. 9 No. 1) at 3-4.) A reading of the complaint filed in this action reveals, however, that the complaint 10 is for an unlawful detainer action. (Id. at 9.) Because an “unlawful detainer cause of action is 11 concerned only with the possession of the Property, damages are limited to those incident to the 12 unlawful detention of said Property.” Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-5478 13 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). Plaintiff’s underlying unlawful detainer 14 complaint, clearly denotes on its face that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000.1 15 (Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1) at 9.) Moreover, it is evident from a reading of plaintiff’s complaint filed in the Napa County 16 17 Superior Court that this is nothing more than a garden-variety unlawful detainer action filed 18 against the former owner of real property located in California and that it is based wholly on 19 California law without reference to any claim under federal law. As such, the complaint does not 20 involve any “claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” 21 that would have permitted plaintiff to file this action originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1441(b). It is also evident from defendants’ Notice of Removal that any federal claims that could 23 conceivably be presented in this action arise solely from defendants’ own affirmative defenses 24 and not from the plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint. See ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC, 25 213 F.3d at 1113. Thus, the defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for 26 27 28 1 Jurisdiction founded on diversity also requires that the parties be in complete diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1332. However, defendants’ notice of removal fails to address the citizenship of any party. 2 1 2 3 4 federal jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to the Napa County Superior Court and that this case be closed. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document presenting objections 8 should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 9 to objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The 10 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 Dated: June 20, 2014 13 14 15 16 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\wellsfargo1433.ud.f&rs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.