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 Company v. Sean Eaddy

September 18, 2012

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
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

I.LEGALL STANDARD

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).

3 II.DISCUSSSION

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 ...


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.