Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02609/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-02609-EJD

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

1

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETRA MARTINEZ, STANLEY 

ATKINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-02609-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

This matter comes before this Court on Defendants Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson’s

(collectively “Defendants”) Notice of Removal from the Superior Court for Monterey County. 

Dkt. No. 1.

1 The underlying action, case number 18cv3101, is Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action 

against Defendants. Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ 2. Plaintiff alleges that it owns a property that Defendants 

have occupied, without Plaintiff’s consent, since a foreclosure sale of the property. Id. at ¶ 5. 

A district court has an independent obligation to examine whether removal jurisdiction 

exists before deciding any issue on the merits. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004). The court concludes that the removal is improper for several reasons. First, a 

third named defendant in the state action, Pamela Stone, has not joined in the Notice of Removal, 

which renders the Notice of Removal facially deficient. Heimuli v. American Home Mortg. 

Servicing, Inc., No. 10-20 EMC, 2010 WL 1445601, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2010) (citing Prize 

 

1

 This is not the only unlawful detainer action Defendants have attempted to removed to federal 

court. See e.g. The Bank of New York Mellon v. Atkinson et al, No. 19-704 VC (attempting 

removal of Monterey County Superior Court case no. 18cv1806); The Bank of New York Mellon v. 

Atkinson et al., No. 19-1594 EJD (attempting removal of Monterey County Superior Court case 

no. 18cv3101); The Bank of New York Mellon v. Atkinson et al, No. 19-2388 EJD (attempting 

removal of Monterey County Superior Court case no. 18cv1806).

Case 5:19-cv-02609-EJD Document 8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02609-EJD

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

Northern District of California

Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.), Inc., 167 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Second, removal is not proper under section 1443. Removal under section 1443 requires 

the removing party to satisfy a two-part test. “First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the 

prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial 

civil rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Cal. v. Sandoval, 434 

F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.1970)). “Second, petitioners must assert that the state courts will not 

enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a 

constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” 

Patel, 446 F.3d at 999 (quoting Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636). Defendants in the present case cannot

satisfy this two-part test. Although Defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that their rights 

under the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been infringed and 

impaired in the state court action (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2), Defendants do not explain how they were 

denied or cannot enforce in state court any law providing for the equal racial civil rights of citizens 

of the United States. 

Third, removal is not proper under section 1441(b). Defendants are citizens of the state of 

California (Dkt. No. 1), and as such, they are “local” or “forum” defendants and cannot remove 

the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); see also Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. 

of Cal., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “the presence of a local defendant at the 

time removal is sought bars removal”). Moreover, even if section 1441(b)(2) did not bar removal, 

Defendants have not shown that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction 

has been met. Plaintiff in the underlying state court action seeks damages in the amount of $36.66 

for every day after May 10, 2018 through entry of judgment. Because the damages sought from 

the allegedly unlawful possession of the property do not exceed $75,000 to date, the amount in 

controversy requirement has not been satisfied. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. 

110-5478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (calculating amount in controversy 

based on cumulative possession thus far). 

The Court concludes that this case was improperly removed and accordingly REMANDS 

Case 5:19-cv-02609-EJD Document 8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02609-EJD

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

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

Northern District of California

the case to the Monterey County Superior Court. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Superior Court and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-02609-EJD Document 8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 3