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.

Bankunited v. Irma Carranza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


November 23, 2011

BANKUNITED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
IRMA CARRANZA, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE
DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Irma Carranza ("Defendant") has filed a notice of removal of her Santa Clara County Superior Court unlawful detainer action (in which she is a Defendant) to this Court. See ECF No. 18

1. BankUnited has moved to remand the case to state court claiming that this Court lacks subject 19 matter jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 4 & 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds 20 thatDefendants' motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion 21 hearing set for December 1, 2011 is VACATED. 22

23 lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1447(c). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See 25 Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). 26

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or 27 28

ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

In the case of a removed action, if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court treaties of the United States."*fn1 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim "arises under" federal law, if based on 2 the "well-pleaded complaint," the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery 3 Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1271 (2009). 4

A review of the original complaint filed in state court discloses no federal statutory or 5 constitutional question. An unlawful detainer cause of action such as the one asserted here does 6 not raise a federal question. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 8018, 2011 WL 204322, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. 8 App. 3d 162, 168, 136 Cal. Rptr. 596 (1977) (remanding unlawful detainer action to state court 9 based on lack of federal question jurisdiction); Partners v. Gonzalez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10 95714, at * 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (same). Moreover, it is well-settled that a case 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 Ms. Carranza's 13 defenses or counterclaims to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal 14 law, those allegations do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. 15

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.