Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01733/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01733-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed April 26, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BANK OF AMERICA, ITS ASSIGNEES 

AND/OR SUCCESSORS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GUADALUPE MORAN, and DOES 1–10, 

inclusive; 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-01733 HRL 

ORDER THAT CASE BE 

REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Re: Docket No. 1] 

On April 22, 2010, pro se defendant Guadalupe Moran removed this case from Santa Clara 

County Superior Court. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this action 

be summarily remanded to state court. 

Plaintiff Bank of America filed this unlawful detainer action on November 20, 20091

 in 

Santa Clara County Superior Court. According to the complaint, plaintiff acquired the subject 

property through a foreclosure trustee’s sale in August 2009. Plaintiff served defendant with a 

ninety-day notice to vacate in August 2009, but defendant refused to deliver possession of the 

property. (Compl. 1–3.) 

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subjectmatter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. If after a court’s prompt review of a 

 

1

 It would appear that the removal is outside the thirty-day period for which removal is proper. 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b). However, as a procedural requirement, a federal court cannot remand sua sponte 

on this basis. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 5:10-cv-01733-JF Document 3 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

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. Moore-Thomas 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 asserts that removal is proper based on federal question. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “rising 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, --- U.S. 

----, 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. The 

removal notice suggests that because the foreclosure sale of the subject property was pursuant to 

federal law, that plaintiff’s complaint may be maintained in federal court. (Notice of Removal 1–3.) 

Defendant also alleges the unconstitutional application of various California laws. (Id. at 3.) 

However, defendant’s allegations in his removal notice or in a response to plaintiff’s complaint 

cannot provide this court with federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s complaint clearly states 

only a cause of action for unlawful detainer; it does not allege any federal claims whatsoever. 

(Compl. 1–3.) Accordingly, defendant has 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 

subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Because defendant has yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court ORDERS 

the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned further 

 

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 demanded does not exceed $10,000.00.” (Compl. 

1.) Plaintiff only seeks restitution of the property, $30 a day in damages, and the costs of suit. (Id.

at 3.) In addition, as a local defendant, it would appear that defendant does 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”). 

Case 5:10-cv-01733-JF Document 3 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge 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: April 26, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-01733-JF Document 3 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C 10-01733 Notice will be sent by alternative means to: 

Matthew Edward Podmenik lrodriguez@mccarthyholthus.com 

Notice will be sent by other means to:

Guadalupe Moran 

1335 -1/2 William Court 

San Jose, CA 95116 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

Case 5:10-cv-01733-JF Document 3 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4