Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02553/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02553-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MECHANICS BANK,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-02553-KJM-EFB

vs.

VOLEN PROPERTIES 10, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

/

Plaintiff Mechanics Bank (Mechanics) originally filed this action in Sacramento

County Superior Court on July 27, 2012. (Notice of Removal at 6, ECF 1.) Mechanics’

complaint alleged that defendant Volen Properties 10, LLC (Volen) defaulted on a promissory

note secured by real property and requested specific performance and appointment of a receiver

to take possession of the property. (Id. at 7-15.) Volen removed the case to this court on

October 12, 2012. (ECF 1.) On October 30, 2012, Mechanics filed a motion to remand the case

to state court, to which Volen filed an opposition on November 16, 2012. (ECF 11, ECF 12,

ECF 14.) Volen then withdrew its opposition to Mechanics’ motion on December 21, 2012. 

(ECF 21.)

An action filed in state court may be removed to the district court where the state

court is located if the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

1

Case 2:12-cv-02553-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 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

Volen’s Notice of Removal claims that this court has original jurisdiction over this action under

28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” because the

United States had filed an in rem action, also in the Eastern District of California, concerning the

same property. (ECF 1 at 2.) A federal court’s original jurisdiction over an action depends on

whether a federal issue exists on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. of

State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for So. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). Thus,

Section 1331 cannot provide a basis for this court’s jurisdiction because Mechanics’ complaint

contains no federal claim; it contains only a state law claim. Volen also stated that 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(c), which governs removal of actions that contain both a federal claim and a claim that is

not covered by the court’s original or supplemental jurisdiction, or one that is made

nonremovable by statute, allows removal of this action. (ECF 1 at 2.) But Section 1441(c) is not

relevant to this action, as there are no federal claims, and it does not provide a basis for removal. 

Because removal of this action to this court was improper, Mechanics’ motion to

remand is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

DATED: January 7, 2013.

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-02553-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2