Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03629/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03629-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD TRAVERSO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR INC,

Defendant. /

No. C07-03629 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CASE

MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Traverso’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief from Case

Management Schedule. (Docket No. 11.) Defendant Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. (“Defendant”)

opposes this Motion. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The issue in this unlawful detainer action is whether Defendant has rental rights to a

billboard space it rented from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s material allegations are as follows.

The lease between the parties, first entered into in 1984, includes an automatic five-year term

extension provision, provided that neither party gave notice of termination 60 days prior to the end

of the lease. (Plaintiff’s Complaint, “Complaint” at 2.) The lease, if not automatically extended,

would have ended on February 28, 2007. (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he sent Defendant

timely notice to terminate the lease on February 28, 2007. (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff further

contends that Defendant did not vacate the premises on February 28, 2007. (Complaint at 2.)

Case 3:07-cv-03629-CRB Document 29 Filed 10/26/07 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

2

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in state court on June 14, 2007 as an unlimited civil

case. (Complaint at 1.) Plaintiff, inter alia, demanded possession from Defendant after the

expiration of a fixed-term lease. (Id. at 3.) Defendant removed the action to federal court on July

13, 2007 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Def.’s Notice of Removal at 1.) 

On October 12, 2007, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff now moves

the Court to apply California procedural law governing unlawful detainer actions under Civil Local

Rule 16-2(d).

LEGAL STANDARD

A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

when the scope of the rule is “sufficiently broad to cover the situation” so long as the rule is

constitutional and a valid exercise of the Supreme Court’s rule-making power under the federal

Rules Enabling Act. See Hanna v. Plummer, 380 U.S. 460, 471 (1965). See also Walker v. Armco

Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740, 750 n.9 (1980). The lower courts have the authority to adopt consistent

local rules governing procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 2071. 

In the Northern District of California, Civil Local Rule 16-2(d) provides that a party may, by

motion, seek relief from an obligation imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 or 26 or

the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference. The motion must: (1) describe the

circumstances which support the request, (2) confirm that counsel has met and conferred in an effort

to reach agreement on the matter, (3) be accompanied by a proposed revised case management

schedule, and (4) if applicable, indicate any changes required in the ADR process or schedule in the

case. See CIV. L. R. 16-2(d).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the Court should apply California procedural law for unlawful detainer

actions rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local Rules. (See

Plf.’s Proposed Order, Docket No. 14.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court should adopt the

unlawful detainer provisions that provide for filing an answer within five days of service of an

unlawful detainer complaint, shortened discovery deadlines, shortened briefing and hearing

timelines for summary judgment motions, and giving trial preference for unlawful detainer actions

Case 3:07-cv-03629-CRB Document 29 Filed 10/26/07 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

over nearly all other categories of civil actions. (See Plf.’s Mem. of P. & A. at 4-5.) Defendant

opposes this Motion, asserting that the Court should apply federal procedural law in this case. 

(Def.’s Opp., Exh. A.)

Plaintiff concedes that the unlawful detainer rules he requests this Court to apply are in

conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Plf.’s Mem. of P. & A. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts,

however, that the California unlawful detainer statutes provide for expedited adjudication of

unlawful detainer actions and do not have a counterpart in the Federal Rules. (Id.) Plaintiff also

contends that federal courts have, in the past, applied California procedural law to unlawful detainer

actions. (Id.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs arguments unavailing. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Civil Local Rules do not provide for expedited unlawful detainer procedures, they establish,

inter alia, the procedure and timelines for the filing of complaints and answers, discovery, summary

judgment, and trial. See, e.g., CIV. L. R. 3, 7, 16, 26, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 56; FED. R. CIV. P. 3, 5,

6, 7, 16, 26, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 56. The federal rules are therefore in direct conflict with the

unlawful detainer procedures that Plaintiff requests this Court to apply. 

In addition, the cases cited by Plaintiff do not support the proposition that federal courts have

applied the California unlawful detainer procedures at issue in this Motion. Instead, the case law

illustrates that courts have applied the substantive elements of the unlawful detainer action contained

in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161. See, e.g., Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States Postal

Service, No. 98-16570, 98-16572, 2000 WL 61295, at *3 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2000) (approving, in an

unlawful detainer action involving the Postal Service, the district court’s application of federal law

to the procedure and California law to the merits); United States v. Hilliard, No. C94-3067, 1995

WL 225669, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 8, 1995) (finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff established every

essential element of its unlawful detainer claim under Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1161). Federal courts

have also applied the notice requirements contained in California unlawful detainer statutes. See

United States v. Wilson, 881 F.2d 596, 600 (9th Cir. 1989) (approving the district court’s application

of the elements of an unlawful detainer claim, including the notice requirements, pursuant to Cal.

Code of Civ. Pro. § 1161); Gallman v. Pierce, 639 F.Supp. 472, 478 (N.D.Cal. 1986) (finding that

Case 3:07-cv-03629-CRB Document 29 Filed 10/26/07 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

the termination proceedings under Section 8’s existing housing program are left by Congress and

HUD to state law and thus applying the California unlawful detainer provisions, including the notice

requirements). The cases do not, however, support Plaintiff’s contention that this Court should

apply California’s unlawful detainer procedures for, inter alia, pleadings, discovery, summary

judgment and trial. Instead, the reasoning set forth in these cases affirmatively supports a finding

that this Court should, in the present case, apply federal procedural law and California substantive

law. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and the relevant case law, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

request.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Case

Management Schedule and VACATES the October 30, 2007 hearing in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03629-CRB Document 29 Filed 10/26/07 Page 4 of 4