Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aurora Loan Services v. Jesus Angel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


April 28, 2011

AURORA LOAN SERVICES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JESUS ANGEL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO MONTEREY ) COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Jesus Angel and Barbara Fimbrez-Angel (the "Angels") have filed a notice of removal of 17 their Monterey County Superior Court unlawful detainer action (in which they are Defendants) 18 based on "federal claims raised in [Angels'] affirmative defenses to the unlawful detainer 19 complaint."

In the case of a removed action, if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). A 24 plaintiff bringing an unlawful detainer claim is entitled to judgment upon establishing that the 25 property at issue was sold in accordance with California Civil Code section 2924 and that the 26 requisite three-day notice to quit to defendant was served as required in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8018, 2011 WL 204322, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168, 136 Cal. Rptr. 596 (1977)).

An unlawful detainer cause of action such as the one asserted here does not raise a federal question. See, e.g., Litton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8018, *2 (remanding unlawful detainer action to 5 state court based on lack of federal question jurisdiction); Partners v. Gonzalez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95714, at * 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (same). Moreover, it is well-settled that a case 7 may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). Thus, to the extent the Angels' 9 defenses or counterclaims to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal 10 law, those allegations do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the unlawful detainer action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110428

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.