Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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

 The case has been referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21), pursuant to 28 1

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANNIE MAE, ALSO KNOWN AS

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1474 MCE GGH PS

vs.

BRIAN LEMERE, FINDINGS &

Defendant. RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Heather Collins, proceeding pro se and purporting to be a defendant in the state

court action, filed on June 15, 2010 a Notice of Removal of an unlawful detainer action filed

against defendant Brian Lemere in state court, as well as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The request to proceed in forma pauperis will not be addressed as the court recommends that the

case be remanded to state court.

1

BACKGROUND

Defendant Lemere was sued in state court in an unlawful detainer action for his

refusal to quit and deliver possession of residential real property purchased by plaintiff at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Although it does not appear that Heather Collins was a party to that

action, she claims that she is a tenant of the foreclosed property and that she filed a claim in the

unlawful detainer action which gave her standing in that action. She has attached a form entitled

Case 2:10-cv-01474-MCE -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

“prejudgment claim of right to possession” which states that if filed, the form will entitle the

claim by the individual to be determined in the court proceeding against the person named in the

complaint. (Dkt. #1 at 13-14.) The undersigned does not have sufficient information to

determine if Collins is truly a party to the removed action, but will assume so for purposes of this

discussion only.

Heather Collins has filed the instant petition for removal, alleging a new claim in

her notice of removal for violation of new federal legislation, “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure

Act of 2009,” which she claims gives the court federal question jurisdiction. Collins also alleges

diversity jurisdiction. Collins seeks removal based on the aforementioned grounds.

DISCUSSION

A district court has an independent duty to examine its own jurisdiction and

remand a removed action “since removal is permissible only where original jurisdiction exists at

the time of removal or at the time of the entry of final judgment ....” Sparta Surgical Corp. v.

National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9 Cir. 1998), quoting th

Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 43, 118 S. Ct. 956, 966

(1998); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 229, 110 S. Ct. 596, 606-07 (1990); Harris

v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9 Cir. 1994). th

Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against removal. See Libhart

v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party

invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.1994)

(quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). 

Collins invokes the court’s jurisdiction under the “Protecting Tenants at

Foreclosure Act of 2009.” A plaintiff may bring suit in federal court if his claim “arises under”

federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In that situation, the court has original jurisdiction. A defendant

Case 2:10-cv-01474-MCE -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

cannot invoke the federal court’s original jurisdiction. But he may in some instances invoke the

court’s removal jurisdiction. The requirements to invoke removal jurisdiction are often identical

to those for invoking its original jurisdiction. The requirements for both relate to the same end,

that is, federal jurisdiction. 

Removal of a state court action is proper only if it originally could have been filed

in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “[F]ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear, originally or by

removal, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law

creates the cause of action, or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution

of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 2855-56 (1983). Mere reference to federal

law is insufficient to permit removal. See Smith v. Industrial Valley Title Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 90,

93 (3d Cir. 1992). A defense to an action, based on constitutional rules of general applicability,

is not a sufficient basis to remove an action to federal court. See id.; Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d

422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[N]either an affirmative defense based on federal law . . . nor one

based on federal preemption . . . renders an action brought in state court removable.”). 

Assuming Collins is a party to the action, she has not shown that she is unable to raise her federal

constitutional rights in state court.

Moreover, federal courts have held that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act

of 2009 does not create a federal private right of action, but indeed provides directives to state

courts. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust, 2010 WL 2179885 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

This court has no jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions which are strictly

within the province of state court. Collins’ apparent attempt at creating federal subject matter

jurisdiction by simply adding claims or defenses to a petition for removal will not succeed. See

Catee v. Capital One, F.S.B. 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9 Cir. 2007) (even previously asserted th

counterclaims raising federal issue will not permit removal).

\\\\\

Case 2:10-cv-01474-MCE -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4
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

 Furthermore, removal may be had only if all defendants join, and defendant Lemere has 2

not joined in this removal. W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial § 2:611.

4

Accordingly, the court finds that remand is appropriate because the case is not one

which arises under federal law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), where it appears the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the court shall make an order for remand. The petition for removal

and the state court record filed in this case demonstrate that the underlying proceedings are not 

removable to this court.

2

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The state action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court, County of

Placer, Roseville Courthouse; 

2. The Clerk serve a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the Superior

Court, County of Placer, Roseville Courthouse, and reference the state case number (MCV

44844) in the proof of service; and

3. The Clerk be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 6, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076Fannie1474.rem.wpd

Case 2:10-cv-01474-MCE -GGH Document 3 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4