Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01349-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

RACHEL PACRAY, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10cv01349 AWI DLB 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION 

TO STATE COURT

Defendant Rachel Pacray (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, removed this action from the

Stanislaus County Superior Court on July 28, 2010. 

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant has attempted to remove an action based wholly on state law. The

underlying complaint is an unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services,

LLC., on October 7, 2009, in Stanislaus County Superior Court. 

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original

subject-matter 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 defendant to demonstrate that removal was

1

Case 1:10-cv-01349-AWI-DLB Document 3 Filed 07/30/10 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

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)).

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising 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, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal

question do not satisfy this requirement. Id. at 1273.

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the action arises under federal law. An unlawful

detainer action arises under state law and does not involve any federal claims. Although

Defendant contends in her notice of removal that this action should be removed based on another

action she filed here that allegedly raises a federal question, she is incorrect. Removal must be 1

based on the underlying complaint, which here raises only an issue of state law. Defendant has

failed to show that removal is proper and therefore this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

ORDER

The Court ORDERS that this action be REMANDED to Stanislaus County Superior

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant references 1:09cv01942 OWW GSA, an action she filed here alleging 22 causes of action,

1

including Violation of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Defendant fails to mention that all of her claims in that action against Aurora Loan Services, LLC, along with her

claims against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and Shea Mortgage, Inc., were dismissed with prejudice. It

is unclear whether the remaining defendant in that action, Chicago Title Company, was properly served with the

complaint. Further, the issue of whether Ms. Pacray may maintain any claims against Chicago Title Company will

not be addressed here.

2

Case 1:10-cv-01349-AWI-DLB Document 3 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2