The opinion of the court was delivered by: 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:
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
On July 12, 2011, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-SB1 ("Plaintiff") brought an Unlawful Detainer action ("Action") against Alison Wendy Winston ("Defendant") in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Notice of Removal, Exh. A, Dkt. 1. Plaintiff claimed to be owner of the subject property located at 2463 Century Hill Unit 275, Los Angeles, California 90067 ("the premises"). Id. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant failed to comply with the three-day Notice to Quit served on June 30, 2011. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought possession of the premises, costs incurred in the Unlawful Detainer proceeding, and damages for each day that Defendant remained in possession. Id.
On December 1, 2011, Defendant removed the Action to this Court. Dkt. 1. Defendant argues that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Action based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because she asserts a defense to the Action that arises under a federal law -- the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5220. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Action. Dkt. 9. This motion is set for hearing on April 16, 2012. The Court, on its own motion, has considered the matters raised in the parties' respective papers and has concluded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the matters can be decided without oral argument. Consequently, the Court takes the April 16, 2012 hearing off calendar and issues this written ruling with respect to the motion.
Defendant failed to file any timely opposition to the motion to remand. This alone provides a sufficient basis for granting such motion. Local Rule 7-12 ("The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."). In this matter, however, there is an independent ground for remand: The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, notwithstanding the assertion by Defendant in the Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1, that this Action raises "federal questions," based on the complaint that has been filed, it does not.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. LA CV11-09995 ...