Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02694/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02694-0/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NOT FOR CITATION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. C10-02694 HRL

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED

TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 21, 2010, pro se defendant Pepito C. Lim 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 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. 

(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

*E-FILED 06-22-2010*

Case 5:10-cv-02694-JF Document 3 Filed 06/22/10 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 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”).

2

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 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, --- 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. His

notice of removal indicates that he has filed a separate lawsuit against First Federal for alleged

violations of state and federal law. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 2, 4). He further suggests that this

court has jurisdiction over this action as a bankruptcy matter. However, defendant’s allegations

in his removal notice or in a response to plaintiff’s complaint cannot provide this court with

federal question jurisdiction. Moreover, the complaint that defendant seeks to remove clearly

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

whatsoever. 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.1

 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

Case 5:10-cv-02694-JF Document 3 Filed 06/22/10 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

3

further 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:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 22, 2010

Case 5:10-cv-02694-JF Document 3 Filed 06/22/10 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-02694-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-02694-JF Document 3 Filed 06/22/10 Page 4 of 4