Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Etc. v. Aurora Silva

October 14, 2011

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. ETC.
v.
AURORA SILVA



Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

JS 6

Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

On October 5, 2011, Defendant removed this case from state court claiming federal question and civil rights jurisdiction. The complaint is a state law unlawful detainer complaint and does not state a federal cause of action. While the notice of removal states several potential federal defenses to the complaint and federal counterclaims that might be raised, federal jurisdiction is based on the plaintiff's complaint and not on any federal counterclaims or defenses that a defendant might assert. See Holmes Group, Inc. V. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002).

Civil rights removal under § 1443(1) requires "[f]irst, [that] the [defendants] must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights [and] [s]econd, that [the defendants] must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights." Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.1970)). Defendant appears to believe that she will not receive an adequate hearing in unlawful detainer court. However, none of her mostly unspecific concerns implicates an equal protection right -- racial or otherwise. And, even assuming that unlawful detainer courts have sometimes not provided full due process rights, Defendant fails to "refer[] to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights."

The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111014

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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