(UD)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank v. Sherzad ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01995-JAM-DB 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 13 ATALL SHERZAD and MIZHGAN ALAM, 14 Defendants. 15 16 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 17 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 18 Recommendations in this case. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(d) 19 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 20 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 21 Judge.”). 22 On October 28, 2021, Defendants Atall Sherzad and Mizhgan 23 Alam filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove 24 an action from San Joaquin County Superior Court.1 Notice of 25 Removal, ECF No. 1. For the following reasons, the Court sua 26 1 Though the Notice of Removal states the case was removed from 27 “Superior Court of County of Shasta,” the exhibits attached to the Notice indicate it was in fact removed from the San Joaquin 28 County Superior Court, not the Shasta County Superior Court. 1 sponte REMANDS this case to San Joaquin County Superior Court. 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action 3 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 4 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 5 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 6 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 7 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 8 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a 9 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 10 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 11 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendant seeking 12 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 13 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 14 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 16 inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 17 can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 18 Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 19 diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 20 the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 21 Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 22 (1989). 23 Here, Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 24 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. Notice of 25 Removal at 2-3. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that the 26 removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand 27 and against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 28 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). The “strong presumption” against 1 removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the 2 burden of establishing that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. 3 Federman–Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 4 1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 5 1988). Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 6 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. 7 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 In determining the presence or absence of federal 9 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 10 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 11 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 12 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 13 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 14 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 15 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 16 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 17 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 18 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 19 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 20 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 21 law.”). 22 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 23 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 24 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 25 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 26 federal issue by merely referencing the “Protecting Tenants at 27 Foreclosure Act of 2009” in its Notice. See Notice of Removal at 28 2-3. II EI DEE OIE IS IIR EO 1 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to San Joaquin 2 County Superior Court for all future proceedings. 3 Dated: October 29, 2021 Lh Ion Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28