UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 18, 2012
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
SEAN EADDY,RIA E , ADDY AND ANDREA BELAFONTE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yvonnne Gonzallez Rogers United States District Court Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO REMAND;DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS'FEES; AND GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERISSTATUS
United States District Court
18 This case was removed from the Del Norte County Superior Court where it was pending as an 19 unlawful detainer action against pro se Defendants Sean Eaddy, Ria Eaddy, and Andrea Belafonte. 20 Ms. Belafonte removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 invoking this Court's federal 21 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 under the Protecting Tenants from Foreclosure Act 22 ("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201 et seq.
23 On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the grounds that Defendant has 24 failed to establish the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 25 The Court GRANTS the motion for Remand because no federal question is presented in this 26 action.*fn1
2 A defenddant may rem move a civil action filedd in state couurt if the actioon originallyy could havee 3 beenn filed in fedderal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Distrrict courts haave federal qquestion juriisdiction oveer 4 civill actions arissing under thhe Constitutiion, laws or treaties of thhe United Sttates. 28 U.SS.C. § 1331. 5 Disttrict courts hhave diversity jurisdiction over civil actions betw ween citizenss of differennt states wherre 6 the aamount in coontroversy eexceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
7 A plaintiiff may seekk to have a caase remandeed to the statte court if thee district couurt lacks 8 jurissdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 14447(c). The burden of esstablishing ffederal jurisddiction is on the party 9 seekking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins.. Co., 372 F..3d 1115, 11117 (9th Cir. 2004). Theere is a "stronng 10 pressumption" aggainst removval jurisdiction, with douubts as to rem movability aare resolved in favor of 11 rem manding the ccase to state court. Mathheson v. Proggressive Speecialty Ins. CCo., 319 F.3dd 1089, 10900 12 (9thh Cir. 2003); Gaus v. Milles. Inc., 9800 F.2d 564, 5566 (9th Cir.. 1992).
14 Defendaant invoked tthis Court's federal quesstion jurisdicction under 228 U.S.C. § 1331 on the 15 basiis that this acction arises uunder Proteccting Tenantss from Forecclosure Act ("PTFA"), 112 U.S.C. §§§ 16 5201 et seq. Thhe PTFA is inntended to bbe used for pprotection in state court bbut does not create a 17 privvate right of aaction or a bbasis for fedeeral subject m matter jurisddiction. See Bank of Neww York v. 18 Gueevara-Martinnez, C-11-54474 CW, 20112 WL 500777 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (holding that becausee
United States District Court Northern District of California
A, federal quuestion
20 jurissdiction is laacking); Auroora Loan Seervices LLC vv. Jessie Torrres, C-11-3061 EJD, 20011 WL
21 4551458 (N.D. CCal. Sept. 300, 2011) (noting that othher courts connsidering this issue cam me to the sam me
22 concclusion). Thhus, a defensse under the PTFA cannoot establish aa basis for feederal jurisddiction.
23 Cateerpillar Inc. v. Williams,, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (19887) ("it is noow settled law w that a casee may not bee
24 rem moved to fedeeral court onn the basis off a federal deefense."). Thherefore, thee Court doess not have
25 subjject-matter juurisdiction oover this actiion based uppon the PTFA
26 Under thhe well-pleadded complaint rule, the ffederal questtion must bee presented bby the 27 plainntiff's compplaint. Vadenn v. Discoveery Bank, 5566 U.S. 49, 600 (2009). Thhe complainnt asserts onlly 19 the oonly possible federal issue involved would be a defense undder the PTFA
1 one state law claaim for unlawful detaineer; it does noot allege anyy federal claiim whatsoevver. Thus, 2 therre is no federral question jjurisdiction. 3 Finally, there is no ddiversity juriisdiction in tthhis matter. PPlaintiff's CComplaint inddicates that 4 the aamount dem manded does not exceed $$10,000. Ass such, the am mount in conntroversy dooes not meett 5 the jjurisdictionaal threshold oof $75,000.000 for diverssity jurisdictiion. 28 U.S.C §§ 1441(bb) & 1332(aa).
7 For the rreasons set fo forth above, tthis action m must be remaanded. 8 Plaintifff's Motion too Remand (D Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED D. Plaintiff's Request foor Attorneys' 9 Feess is DENIED..
10 Pursuantt to 28 U.S.CC. § 1915 Anndrea Belafoonte is GRAN NTED in Forrma Pauperiss status (Dktt. 11 No. 3) and may proceed witthout payingg the filing feee. 12 The Clerrk of the Couurt is directeed to REMAN ND this action to the Del Norte Counnty Superior United States District Court Northern District of California 13 Couurt.
14 The Clerrk of Court iis further dirrected to forw ward certifieed copies of this Order aand all dockeet 15 entrries to the Cllerk of the D Del Norte Couunty Superioor Court.
This Ordder terminatees Dkt. No. 12.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.