Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00520/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 February 5, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROSE MARTINEZ, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-00520 HRL 

ORDER THAT CASE BE 

REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Re: Docket No. 2] 

Pro se defendant Rose Martinez removed this case from Santa Clara County Superior Court 

along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned 

recommends that this action be summarily remanded to state court. 

Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action on November 9, 

2009 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, 

who appears to be renting the property, with a sixty-day notice to vacate in September 2009, but 

defendant refused to deliver possession of the property. (Compl. 2–3.) 

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 

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. 

Case 5:10-cv-00520-JW Document 4 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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 

§ 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, Martinez asserts that removal is proper based on diversity of citizenship. Yet federal 

jurisdiction based on diversity requires not only citizens of different states, but also that the amount 

in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Martinez states that there is complete 

diversity of citizenship because plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado while she is a citizen of California.1 

Nonetheless, she fails to allege any amount in controversy, let alone an amount over $75,000. 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 and possession of the property, damages 

of $60.00 per day from November 5, 2009 to the date of entry of judgment, and costs incurred. (Id.

at 3.) It therefore is apparent from the face of the complaint that it fails to meet this court’s 

jurisdictional requirement under § 1332(a). Furthermore, as an unlawful detainer action, the 

complaint also does not raise a federal question such that this court would have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

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 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge (1) summarily remand the case to Santa Clara 

County Superior Court; and (2) deny as moot, without prejudice, defendant’s application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. 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: February 5, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

 As a local defendant, it would appear that Martinez does not have the right to remove this action to 

federal court. 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”). Furthermore, the removal is outside the thirty-day period for which removal is 

proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). However, as procedural requirements, a federal court cannot remand 

sua sponte on these bases. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 5:10-cv-00520-JW Document 4 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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 

C 10-00520 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

David R Endres dendres@dre-apc.com

Notice will be sent by alternative means to:

Rose Martinez 

772 College Drive 

San Jose, CA 95128 

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-00520-JW Document 4 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3