UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2013
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY
MARY ESTHER ANGULO, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable George H. King, Chief U. S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Presiding: The Honorable GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Beatrice Herrera N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Remanding action; Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 3)
On March 7, 2013, we required Defendants to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given that this appears to be an improperly removed unlawful detainer action. On March 18, 2013, Defendants timely responded to our OSC. Defendants' response appears to reattach their Notice of Removal and reasserts that Defendants "rebut the presumption that this is a non-judicial foreclosure issue" and that Plaintiff has engaged in, inter alia, fraud and violated their due process rigths. (Response 1-3). As we explained in our March 7, 2013 OSC, however, even if these arguments raise a federal question, federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim under the well-pleaded complaint rule. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We hereby REMAND this action to the state court from which it was removed. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk IR for Bea
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.