Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02515/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02515-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel K. McAllister
Defendant
Jennifer L. McAllister
Defendant
The Bank of New York
Plaintiff
The Bank of New York Mellon
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF 

THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF 

CWABS INC., ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-6,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNIFER L. MCALLISTER, 

DANIEL K. MCALLISTER, and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02515-GEB-GGH

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On December 3, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of 

Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the Superior 

Court of California for the County of Sutter. (Notice of Removal 

(“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua 

sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for 

the County of Sutter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

“There is a ‘strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction,’ and the removing party has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 

 

* The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a 

Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this 

case.

Case 2:15-cv-02515-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) 

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendants assert in the Notice of Removal (“NOR”) that 

federal question removal jurisdiction exists. (NOR & 3.) 

Essentially, Defendants contend the Notice to Vacate the Premises 

they received following the foreclosure sale of their home 

“expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. ' 5201” and indicate this 

statute will be a defense and/or counterclaim to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (Id. at & 7.)

However, review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff 

alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California 

law, and “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable 

if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”

Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Under 

the “well-pleaded complaint rule[,] . . . ‘a case may not be 

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . 

even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s 

complaint . . . .’” Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of 

Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)). 

Case 2:15-cv-02515-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Similarly, “federal [question] jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an 

actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 50 (2009). Therefore, Defendants’ reliance on the 90–day 

notice provision in Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act is an 

impermissible basis for removal. 

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sutter.

Dated: December 3, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02515-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 3