Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01393-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF 

THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF 

CWABS INC. ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-6,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL K. MCALLISTER, 

JENNIFER L. MCALLISTER, and 

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01393-GEB-AC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On July 1, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal 

removing this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of 

California for the County of Sutter. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 

3, ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte

remands this case to the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Sutter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

“There is a ‘strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction,’ and the removing party has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 

 

* The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a 

Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this 

case.

Case 2:15-cv-01393-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendants allege in the Notice of Removal that federal 

question jurisdiction justifies removal. (NOR & 3.) Specifically, 

Defendants contend: 

Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice 

which expressly references and incorporates 

the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 

2009,” 12 U.S.C. ' 5201. Further, this 

statute is drawn in controversy in this 

action because the federal statute provides 

for a ninety (90) day notice period prior to 

the filing of any state eviction proceeding; 

Defendants assert and allege that Plaintiff 

did not allow the ninety day period to lapse 

before filing his claim.

(Id. at & 7.)

However, review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff

alleges “one [claim] . . . for unlawful detainer under state law, 

and under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s claims 

or defenses may not serve as a basis for removal.” Polymatic 

Props., Inc. v. Mack, No. 2:12-cv-2848-LKK-EFB PS, 2012 WL 

5932618, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing Takeda v. Nw. 

Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985); see also

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Ghosal, No. 14cv2582-GPC(WVG), 

2014 WL 5587199, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (remanding 

Case 2:15-cv-01393-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

unlawful detainer action sua sponte). Therefore, Defendant has 

not shown the existence of federal question removal jurisdiction.

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sutter.

Dated: July 2, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01393-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 3