UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 3, 2011
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-BC1
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
Defendant Adegbenga Adesokan ("Defendant"), proceeding pro se, removed this action from the Madera County Superior Court on September 29, 2011.*fn1
The underlying complaint is an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association on April 28, 2009, in Madera County Superior Court.
Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. If after a court's prompt review of a notice of removal "it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). These removal statutes are strictly construed against removal and place the burden on defendant to demonstrate that removal was proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Here, Defendant seeks removal based on original jurisdiction. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim "arises under" federal law if, based on the "well-pleaded complaint rule," the plaintiff alleges a federal cause of action. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy this requirement. Id. at 1273.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the action arises under federal law. Although Defendant has failed to submit a copy of Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant has filed a copy of his "Answer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer." Doc. 1, pp. 105-111. Defendant's answer makes clear that Plaintiff's complaint asserts only a cause of action for unlawful detainer. An unlawful detainer action arises under state law and does not involve any federal claims.
Defendant appears to argue that removal is proper because he filed an action against Plaintiff in this court to set aside the trustee's sale. See 1:11cv1236 OWW SKO. However, this is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to show that removal is proper based on a federal question and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court ORDERS that this action be REMANDED to Madera County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.