The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS -- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On November 19, 2010, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA ("Wells Fargo") filed a complaint in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendant Vicente Echeverria and Doe defendants 1 to 10 for unlawful detainer. Wells Fargo seeks possession of real property and restitution for Plaintiff's use and occupancy of the property in the amount of $70 per day starting on November 7, 2010. (Compl. at 4.) Wells Fargo demands less than $10,000 in damages. (Id. at 1.)
Defendant removed this case to federal court on June 6, 2011 asserting jurisdiction based on federal question, diversity of citizenship, and 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Since that time, there has been no activity in this case.
I. FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
The complaint for unlawful detainer raises no federal question. Defendant, by asserting there is federal question jurisdiction based on (1) an allegedly forged notary text in a substitution of trustee form, (2) use of the U.S. mails, and (3) receipt of government bailout money by the banks (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11, 13.), invokes federal law as an apparent defense. It is axiomatic, however, that federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49,129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009).
II. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
The face of the complaint reveals that Wells Fargo seeks less than $75,000, the minimum amount required for jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant nonetheless asserts that the amount in controversy meets the $75,000 threshold because the value of property at issue ...