Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03199/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-03199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEPITO C. LIM; DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendant. /

No. C10-03199 HRL

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO JUDGE

FOGEL FOR RELATED CASE

DETERMINATION

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The instant action is hereby referred to Judge Fogel for a determination whether it is

related, within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12, to First Federal Bank of California v.

Lim, Case No. C10-02694 JF (HRL).

For the second time, defendant Pepito Lim attempts to remove an unlawful detainer

action from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant’s first try failed because he did not

show any federal basis for removal. (See Case No. C10-02694 JF (HRL), Docket Nos. 4-5). 

Defendant’s current attempt to remove the very same state lawsuit fares no better. For the

reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily remanded to

state court.

Plaintiff First Federal Bank of California (“First Federal”) filed this unlawful detainer

action on December 9, 2009 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. According to the

complaint, plaintiff acquired the subject property through a foreclosure trustee’s sale.

*E-FILED 07-29-2010*

Case 5:10-cv-03199-JF Document 5 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 On the record presented here, it is not apparent that defendant could state a

claim for alleged constitutional violations against plaintiff or the state court. See Simmons v.

Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that claims for

alleged constitutional deprivations could not be asserted against private actors and were

2

(Complaint, ¶¶ 5-6). The complaint further alleges that on November 25, 2009, plaintiff served

defendant with a notice to vacate, but defendant refused to deliver possession of the property. 

(Id. ¶¶ 7-9).

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. If, after a court’s prompt review of a

notice of removal “it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto

that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28

U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). These removal statutes are strictly construed against

removal and place the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate that removal was proper. MooreThomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Here, defendant once again asserts that removal is proper based on federal question. 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws,

or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based

on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal cause of action. Vaden v.

Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal

question do not satisfy this requirement. Id. at 1273.

Defendant fails to support his assertion that this action arises under federal law. His

notice of removal indicates that he has filed a separate lawsuit in state court against First

Federal in connection with the foreclosure of the subject property. He further asserts that the

mere filing of the unlawful detainer complaint by First Federal and the state court’s acceptance

of that complaint constitutes a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. As this

court stated with respect to defendant’s prior removal notice, allegations in his removal notice

or in a response to plaintiff’s complaint cannot provide this court with federal question

jurisdiction.1

 Moreover, the complaint that defendant seeks to remove states only a cause of

Case 5:10-cv-03199-JF Document 5 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

otherwise barred by judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment).

2 Defendant does not establish diversity of citizenship in his removal notice,

and a review of the complaint shows that it specifies that the “amount of damages claimed in

this action does not exceed $10,000.00.” (Complaint ¶ 1c.) And, plaintiff otherwise seeks

only possession of the property and the costs of suit. (Id. at 3.) In addition, as local

defendants, it would appear that defendants would not have the right to remove this action to

federal court under diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (stating that an action is

removable for diversity “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as

defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought”).

3

action for unlawful detainer; it does not allege any federal claims whatsoever. Accordingly,

defendant has once again failed to show that removal is proper on account of any federal

substantive law. Nor does the complaint on its face establish that this court might have subjectmatter jurisdiction based on diversity.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the instant action be summarily

remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation

within fourteen days after being served.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 29, 2010

Case 5:10-cv-03199-JF Document 5 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:10-cv-03199-HRL Notice mailed to:

Earl R Wallace

Ruzicka and Wallace LLP

16520 Bake Parkway, Suite 280

Irvine, CA 92618

Pepito C. Lim

1955 Hogan Drive

San Jose, CA 95054

Case 5:10-cv-03199-JF Document 5 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 4