Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01726/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01726-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTONIA ROBINSON,

GARY ROBINSON, AND DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-01726 WHA

REMAND ORDER

Defendants Antonia and Gary Robinson removed this unlawful-detainer action from

Alameda County Superior Court based on an alleged federal defense (Dkt. No. 1).

The Robinsons were requested to show cause why this case should not be remanded (Dkt. No.

6). They did not respond. This case is hereby REMANDED to Alameda County Superior Court. 

A court shall remand a case if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). “A defendant may not

remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises

under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,

10 (1983) (internal citations omitted). As stated in the order to show cause, an anticipated

federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Ibid. 

This action must be remanded because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

The plaintiff’s complaint, the only pleading from which subject-matter jurisdiction could arise,

contains no federal claims or bases for federal-question jurisdiction. The Robinsons’ alleged

Case 3:15-cv-01726-WHA Document 7 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

federal defense based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act is not sufficient to confer

jurisdiction. See Saratoga Fund Holdings, LLC v. Walker, No. C-14-04629-JST,

2014 WL 6969260, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (Judge Jon Tigar) (citing Franchise Tax

Board, 463 U.S. at 10). 

Similarly, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. 

The complaint only seeks repossession of the premises and costs of suit. The amount in

controversy is less than ten thousand dollars. More, the complaint neither alleges nor provides a

basis for finding that there is complete diversity of the parties.

The case is hereby REMANDED to Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion to shorten time (Dkt. Nos. 4–5) are

DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-01726-WHA Document 7 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 2