Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03252/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aleshia Fuller
Defendant
REO Capital Fund 4, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALESHIA FULLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03249-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RELATE CASES

Re: Dkt. No. 8

On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff Aleshia Fuller filed a motion to consider whether cases should 

be related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff moves this Court for an Order 

deeming two later-filed cases, entitled Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 

Series 2006-11, et al. v. Aleshia Fuller, Civil Case No. 4:15-cv-03254-VC, and REO Capital Fund 

4, LLC v. Aleshia Fuller, Civil Case No. 4:15-cv-03252-KAW, both removed on July 13, 2015,

related to the instant action. In both cases, Fuller is the sole named Defendant. However, both 

cases assert only one cause of action for unlawful detainer. An unlawful detainer action, on its 

face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank 

v. Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 

2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Further, whatever Fuller intends to argue in 

response to this allegation does not give rise to removal jurisdiction. See Holmes Group v. 

Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002; see also Nguyen v. Bui, 2012 WL 

762156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (holding that affirmative defenses based upon Federal 

Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act do not confer federal jurisdiction 

upon state unlawful detainer claim). Thus, as it is likely both cases will be remanded by the 

presiding judges, the Court declines to relate them at this time. However, should either or both 

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cases remain in this Court, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to relate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03252-JST Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 2