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. v. Kapadia

March 27, 2012

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.
v.
KAPADIA



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Margaret M. Morrow

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

ANEL HUERTA N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: Order Remanding Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction;

Denying Application for Temporary Restraining Order[3] as Moot

I. BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2011, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") filed this action against defendant Mohammad Kapadia ("Kapadia") and certain fictitious defendants in Riverside Superior Court.*fn1 Kapadia removed the action to federal court on January, 31, 2012, ostensibly invoking the court's diversity and federal question jurisdiction. This is his second attempt to remove the action -- he previously removed on January 31, 2012.*fn2 The court remanded to Riverside Superior Court because defendant failed to pay the filing fee associated with the removal.

On March 10, 2011, Kapadia was served with a written notice that demanded he surrender possession of the property to Deutsche no later than three days after service of the notice.*fn3 Kapadia failed to surrender possession.*fn4 Deutsche Bank claims it is the true owner of the residence following a non-judicial foreclosure sale held in accordance with California Civil Code § 29224.*fn5 Its title was perfected by the recording of a trustee's deed upon sale on March 10, 2011.*fn6

In his notice of removal, Kapadia invokes the court's federal question and diversity jurisdiction.*fn7 Since removing, he has filed an application for a temporary restraining order enjoining Deutsche Bank from evicting him.*fn8

II. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts "have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" (emphasis added). Federal question jurisdiction is presumed absent unless defendant, as the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936), demonstrates that plaintiff has either alleged a federal cause of action, American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler , 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) ("a suit arises under the law that creates the action"), a state cause of action that turns on a substantial dispositive question of federal law, Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921), or a state cause of action that Congress has ...


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.