Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01391/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01391-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 April 6, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, as trustee, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MILAGROS AGUILERA; PAUL 

AGUILERA; and Does 1–100, inclusive; 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C10-01391 HRL 

ORDER THAT CASE BE 

REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[Re: Docket No. 1] 

On April 1, 2010, pro se defendants Oscar M. Miguelino, Florentina T. Miguelino, Milagros 

Aguilera, and Paul Aguilera 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 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed this unlawful detainer action on 

October 16, 20091

 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. According to the complaint, plaintiff 

acquired the subject property through a foreclosure trustee’s sale in June 2009. Plaintiff served 

defendants with a ninety-day notice to vacate in July 2009, but defendants refused to deliver 

possession of the property. (Compl. 1–3.) 

 

1

 It would appear that the removal is outside the thirty-day period for which removal is proper. 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b). However, as a procedural requirement, a federal court cannot remand sua sponte 

on this basis. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 5:10-cv-01391-JF Document 3 Filed 04/06/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

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. 

§ 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, defendants assert that removal is proper based on federal question. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “rising 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. 

Defendants fail to support their assertion that the action arises under federal law. The 

removal notice suggests that because the foreclosure sale of the subject property was pursuant to 

federal law, that plaintiff’s complaint may be maintained in federal court. (Notice of Removal 1–3.) 

Defendants also allege an unconstitutional application of various California laws. (Id. at 3.) 

However, defendants’ allegations in their removal notice or in a response to plaintiff’s complaint 

cannot provide this court with federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s complaint clearly states 

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

(Compl. 1–3.) Accordingly, defendants have 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.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

 

2

 Defendants do not establish diversity of citizenship in their removal notice, and a review of the 

complaint shows that it specifies that the “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.00.” (Compl. 

1.) Plaintiff only seeks judgment for 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”). 

Case 5:10-cv-01391-JF Document 3 Filed 04/06/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

Because defendants have 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 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: April 6, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-01391-JF Document 3 Filed 04/06/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

C 10-01391 Notice will be sent by alternative means to: 

Doug V. Pham 

Robert J. Jackson & Associates, Inc. 

4199 Campus Dr., Suite 700 

Irvine, CA 92612 

John Corr Saginaw 

Robert J. Jackson & Associates, Inc. 

4199 Campus Dr., Suite 700 

Irvine, CA 92612 

Oscar M. Miguelino 

2844 Rainview Dr. 

San Jose, CA 95133 

Florentina Miguelino 

2844 Rainview Dr. 

San Jose, CA 95133 

Milagros Aguilera 

2844 Rainview Dr. 

San Jose, CA 95133 

Paul Aguilera 

2844 Rainview Dr. 

San Jose, CA 95133 

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-01391-JF Document 3 Filed 04/06/10 Page 4 of 4