Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00936/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00936-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

ONEWEST BANK, FSB,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BENJAMIN SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-00936 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND,

REMANDING ACTION TO CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand is currently set for hearing on August 13, 2010.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral

argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. Having considered plaintiff’s papers, the Court GRANTS

the motion to remand.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff OneWest Bank, FSB filed this unlawful detainer action in the Contra Costa County

Superior Court in November 2009 after purchasing the home of defendants Benjamin and Elvia Sanchez

at a non-judicial foreclosure sale in May 2009. Complaint ¶ 5. The summons and complaint were

served on defendants on November 21, 2009, and defendants thereafter answered the complaint. See

RJN Ex. 2, 3. On March 5, 2010, defendants filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand the action back to state court

and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Case 3:10-cv-00936-SI Document 15 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Remand 

An action filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the federal court would

have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The bases for federal

subject-matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removal statute is strictly construed against

removal jurisdiction, and doubt is resolved in favor of remand. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). 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).

Removal was clearly improper in this case. First, defendants cite federal question jurisdiction

as the basis for removal. The sole cause of action stated in the complaint, however, is for unlawful

detainer. This is not a federal cause of action. Defendants make passing reference to a number of

federal statutes in their removal notice, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act, and Truth in Lending Act. These statutes, however, do not form the basis

of plaintiff’s complaint, and have no place in determining whether there is Court has jurisdiction over

this matter. Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. v. Constr. Lab. Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S.

1, 10 (1983) (“[A] defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint

establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.”) (original emphasis). Second, although defendants

did not assert diversity jurisdiction as a ground for removal, the Court notes that removal would not be

proper on that basis either, as defendants are citizens of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (actions not

arising under federal law are “removable only if none of the . . . defendants is a citizen of the State in

which such action is brought”). Finally, a Notice of Removal must be filed within thirty days of service

of the complaint. Id. § 1446(b). Defendants did not file their Notice of Removal until more than three

months after they received service, and have provided no explanation for the untimely removal. 

Accordingly, the motion to remand is GRANTED. 

II. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Plaintiff also seeks an award of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion to

Case 3:10-cv-00936-SI Document 15 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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

remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) permits the Court to order payment of “just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” In deciding whether to order payment of

costs, the Court must assess whether removal was “wrong as a matter of law.” Balcorta v. Twentieth

Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A]bsent unusual circumstances,

[costs] should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for

removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005).

Here, it is plain that there was no proper basis for removal; this action involves a single state-law

cause of action, and there is no diversity of citizenship. Nonetheless, defendants are proceeding pro se,

and apparently believed that asserting federal statutes in defense of this action presented a basis for

removal. In view of defendants’ pro se status, the Court declines to order an award of the fees and costs

associated with the removal. See Boutrup v. Washburn, No. 09-2678, 2009 WL 4573299, at *2 (E.D.

Cal. Nov. 24, 2009) (“[W]hile having the status of pro se does not set up a dichotomy of rules vis-a-vis

represented litigants, that pro se status warrants some consideration when reviewing a § 1447(c)

request.”); HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Bryant, No. 09-1659, 2009 WL 3787195, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10,

2009) (a pro se defendant is “entitled to more leeway in his attempt to comply with the removal statute,

as long as it was not objectively unreasonable”).

Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs is therefore DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion to remand is

GRANTED. (Docket No. 6). This action is hereby REMANDED to the Contra Costa County Superior

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00936-SI Document 15 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 3