Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01814/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01814-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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 

FILED' 

[ SEP I ~ 2012 

CLERK-u.s. 

IOUTHERN DISTRICT 

T 

",nilWf-..-..It'i' 

WI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION as trustee for WAMU 

Mortgage Pass Through Certificate for 

WMALT Series 2006-AR7 Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOSEPHINE C. BARBARA-RIVAS, an 

individual; DOES 1 through 6, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 12cv1814 WQH-NLS 

ORDER 

HAYES, Judge: 

On March 6, 2012, Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a Complaint for Unlawful 

Detainer in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was 

assignedcasenumber37-2012-00037624-CL-UD-NC. (ECFNo.1-2). TheComplaintalleges 

that Plaintiff is entitled to possession ofreal property located at 3279 Integrity Way, Fallbrook, 

California, 92028. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff served Defendant with written notice 

requiring her to vacate the property and that Defendant failed to vacate the property. The 

Complaint asserts a claim for unlawful detainer under California law. 

On July 23, 2012, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the action to this Court. 

(ECF No.1). The Notice of Removal alleges that federal question jurisdiction exists because 

"Defendant filed a demurrer to the Complaint based on defective notice, i.e., the Notice to 

Occupants to Vacate Premises, failed to comply with the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 

[12 U.S.C. § 5220]." [d. at 2. 

- 1 - 12cvl814 WQH-NLS 

Case 3:12-cv-01814-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/11/12 Page 1 of 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 

On July 31,2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. (ECF No.3). Plaintiff contends 

that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case because federal question jurisdiction 

is not established by the claims in the Complaint. Plaintiff contends that the Complaint does 

not present a federal question but is grounded solely in state law. To date, Defendant has not 

filed a response to the Motion to Remand. 

A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on either 

federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. "[T]he defendant always has 

the burden ofestab lishing that removal is proper." Moore-Thomas v. A laska A irl ine, Inc., 553 

F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). "The presence or absence offederal-question jurisdiction is 

governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists 

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded 

complaint.... [T]he existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support 

jurisdiction." Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quotation and citation omitted). "The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt 

about the right ofremoval requires resolution in favor ofremand." Moore-Thomas, 553 F.3d 

at 1244 (citation omitted). 

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction stated in the Notice ofRemoval is that Defendants 

have a defense to the Complaint based upon Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with a federal 

statute. However, "the existence ofa defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support 

[federal] jurisdiction." Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183. The Court finds that the Notice ofRemoval 

does not adequately state a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action is REMANDED for lack ofsubject-matter 

jurisdiction to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was 

originally filed and assigned case number 37-20 12-00037624-CL-UD-NC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ------L<1I--f--!-~___I_j/£"-+-------=2=--- __ 

- 2 - 12cv1814 WQH-NLS 

Case 3:12-cv-01814-WQH-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 2