Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00454/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00454-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
Plaintiff
Emmanuel G. Rodriguez
Defendant
Joyce G. Rodriguez
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE

FOR MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2006-QO6

Plaintiff,

 v.

EMMANUEL G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., 

Defendants. /

No. 3:15-cv-00454-CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND AND VACATING

HEARING

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas moves to remand this

unlawful detainer action to state court, arguing that Defendants Emmanuel G. Rodriguez and

Joyce G. Rodriguez have not established and cannot establish that this Court has subject

matter jurisdiction in this case as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Mot. to Remand (dkt.

10). As an initial matter, the deadline to file and serve an opposition to the motion to remand

came and went without a word from Defendants. See Civil Local Rule 7-3(a). Moreover, it

is clear on the face of the Complaint that removal was improper. Defendants cannot remove

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because they are “forum state defendants,” meaning they

are citizens of the state in which the action was brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Notice

of Removal (dkt. 1) at ¶ 6 (stating that Defendants are citizens of California). And no federal 

Case 3:15-cv-00454-CRB Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

question appears on the face of the Complaint, which is strictly an unlawful detainer action

related to real property located in Alameda County. See generally Complaint, Notice of

Removal at Ex. 3. Any federal issue that Defendants intend to raise as an answer or

counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for “arising under” jurisdiction. See Holmes Group,

Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002); Notice of Removal

at ¶¶ 9–15. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand this case to state court. 

The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7-1(b), and VACATES the hearing set for March 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00454-CRB Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2