Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02474/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02474-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

 The Court notes that mail recently sent to the address provided for Defendants was

returned to the Court as undeliverable because the location is vacant. Defendants have not provided

the Court with any forwarding address. (See Docket Item Nos. 6, 7.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JP Morgan Chase Bank, National

Association,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Kim Ha Vu, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 10-02474 JW 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

SUMMARILY REMANDING TO SANTA

CLARA SUPERIOR COURT

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation filed on

June 10, 2010. (hereafter, “Report,” Docket Item No. 4.) To date, no objections have been filed.1 

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Any party may serve and file specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation within ten (10) working days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3.

When the parties object to a report and recommendation, the district court “shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). When no

objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and recommendation de novo. 

Case 5:10-cv-02474-JW Document 8 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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 2

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On February 5, 2010, JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action

against Kim Ha Vu and Huy Vu (“Defendants”) in Santa Clara County Superior Court. (See Report

at 1.) On June 4, 2010, Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting federal question

jurisdiction. (Id. at 1-2.) With respect to the removal, Judge Lloyd recommends that the Court

summarily remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

A district court has original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defenses and counterclaims asserting a

federal question do not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129

S. Ct. 1262, 1273 (2009). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint only alleges a state law

cause of action for unlawful detainer and does not allege any federal claims. Thus, the Court finds

that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in full and orders as

follows:

The Court summarily REMANDS the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Clerk of Court shall immediately remand this action to the Superior Court of California,

Santa Clara County and close this file.

Dated: June 25, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02474-JW Document 8 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Kim Ha Vu & Huy Vu

18900 Newsom Avenue

Cupertino, CA 95014

Earl R Wallace

Ruzicka and Wallace LLP

16520 Bake Parkway, Suite 280

Irvine, CA 92618 

Dated: June 25, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:10-cv-02474-JW Document 8 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3