The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO RIVERSIDE (Dkt. 10) JS-6
On September 23, 2011, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust ("Plaintiff") filed a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer action against Defendant Jose I. Garcia ("Defendant"). On December 15, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court.
On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the present Unlawful Detainer action to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (the "Motion"). Dkt. 10. The Motion is currently set for a hearing on March 12, 2012. Movant's counsel has waived oral argument and the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for determination without argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-15 ("The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the F.R.Civ.P. or these Local Rules."). For this reason, the Court takes the March 12, 2012 hearing off calendar and issues this written ruling with respect to the Motion.
The party seeking to establish jurisdiction bears the burden of proving such. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion on February 17, 2012, Dkt. 13, repeating the arguments contained in his Notice of Removal, Dkt. 2. Notwithstanding these arguments, the Court finds that remand is required because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Unlawful Detainer Complaint (Dkt. 10, Exh. 1) does not contain a cause of action that raises a federal question, does not show a complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and does not show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
No more persuasive is Defendant's argument that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). That statute creates the right to remove a civil action "[a]against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.." 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). However, § 1443 is interpreted restrictively. A party petitioning for removal under § 1443 must meet a two-part test:
First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights. Second, petitioners 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.
California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). Here, Defendant has not identified a state or constitutional provision that directs state courts to ignore his civil rights. Additionally, the right that Defendant asserts does not spring from specific statutory grants, but from the broad protection of the Fourteenth ...