Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01584/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01584-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREAS NOTTEBOHM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01584-SI 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

BACKGROUND

Litigants Tess and Andreas Nottebohm initiated this litigation saga in state court in March 

of 2010, and have since sustained a number of adverse judgments on the merits of their claims. 

See e.g. Nottebohm v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., No. A139030, 2014 WL 5035948 

(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2014). The Nottebohms have also brought a number of related actions in 

federal court, which have all ended in dismissal or remand. See e.g. Nottebohm v. Am. Home 

Mortgage Corp., No. C 11-01838 SI, 2011 WL 3678841 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011). These cases 

all pertain to the foreclosure of the Nottebohms’ family home at 90 Sidney Court, San Rafael, CA

(“the Property”). The present case is an unlawful detainer action filed by plaintiff Deutsche Bank 

in Marin County Superior Court on July 31, 2012. Docket No. 1. It was removed to this Court, not 

by the Nottebohms’, but by their tenant, Sarah Weinstein (a co-defendant), on April 7, 2015. Id.

On April 30, 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a notice with the Court explaining that it had obtained a 

judgment for possession of the Property and that all defendants had vacated the property; and 

asked the Court to remand this action to state court. Docket No. 16. In response to the Court’s 

Case 3:15-cv-01584-SI Document 32 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 4
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

order to show cause why the case should not be remanded, Weinstein argued that the case 

presented a question of federal law, namely whether Deutsche Bank violated her rights under the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”) when it took possession of the Property. 

Docket No. 19. Weinstein also later argued that federal jurisdiction could be conferred by virtue of 

the fact that the defendants in this case could have removed the action based on diversity 

jurisdiction. Docket No. 27. Deutsche Bank has maintained that this Court does not have 

jurisdiction. Docket No. 28.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 

initially brought in state court, the defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has 

original diversity jurisdiction where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, and is 

between, inter alia, citizens of different States, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 

foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. Remand to state 

court may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal 

procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a party, 

and the parties who invoked the federal court’s removal jurisdiction have the burden of 

establishing federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (U.S.1921)). “If at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). To protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal 

jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 

Case 3:15-cv-01584-SI Document 32 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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

689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). Any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of 

remand to state court. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that jurisdiction may be supported on the basis of diversity, as they are 

California residents, while Deutsche Bank is a Delaware citizen. However, the removal statute 

makes clear that diversity jurisdiction will not lie if any of the defendants is a citizen of the State 

in which the action is brought. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b)(2); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 

U.S. 61, 68 (1996). The defendants to this action are citizens of California, the state in which the 

action was originally brought; therefore diversity cannot serve as a basis for subject matter

jurisdiction.

Next, defendants argue that the presence of a federal question of law confers jurisdiction 

on this Court. Specifically, Weinstein argues that her eviction violated her rights under the PTFA. 

A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The federal question must be “presented 

on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987). While violation of her rights under the PTFA may provide Weinstein with a 

viable counterclaim against Deutsche Bank, “federal jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an actual or 

anticipated counterclaim,” because such a claim does not appear on the face of the complaint. 

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). In the present case, the complaint does make 

mention of the PTFA, however federal question jurisdiction will lie “only when the plaintiff's 

statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law]... It is not enough 

that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action.” Id. (citing Louisville & 

Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Here, plaintiff’s statement of its own cause 

of action for unlawful detainer does not present a federal question.

Case 3:15-cv-01584-SI Document 32 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

CONCLUSION

Having found that both diversity and federal question jurisdiction are lacking, the Court 

hereby REMANDS this action to state court. The case management conference currently 

scheduled for July 9, 2015 is VACATED, and defendant Weinstein’s ex parte motion to seal the 

case is DENIED as moot. Docket No. 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01584-SI Document 32 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 4