Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Osburn ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEUTSHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0003 JLT SKO COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR INDYMAC ) 12 INDX MORTAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-AR11, ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH ) TO TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 13 CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-AR11, ) ) 14 Plaintiff, ) ) 15 v. ) ) 16 RONALD OSBORN, SADIE BELL OSBORN, ) and Does 1-5, inclusive, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) 19 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Indymac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 20 2006-AR11, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR11, initiated this action against 21 Ronald Osborn and Sadie Bell Osborn by filing a complaint for unlawful detainer in Tulare County 22 Superior Court, Case No. VCL203611.1 (Doc. 1 at 19-21.) On January 3, 2023, the Osborns filed a 23 Notice of Removal to initiate the matter before this Court. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, 24 25 1 The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 26 (9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 27 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore, judicial notice is taken of the docket and complaint filed on August 25, 2022 in Case No. VCL203611, which is attached to 28 the Notice of Removal. 1 the Court finds it lacks subject jurisdiction over the action and the matter is REMANDED to Tulare 2 County Superior Court. 3 I. Removal Jurisdiction 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court 5 where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 6 392 (1987). Specifically, 7 Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 8 original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the 9 place where such action is pending. 10 11 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 12 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 13 A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of 14 receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, 15 and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 16 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its 17 propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 18 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the 19 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt 20 as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485. 21 The Court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua 22 sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 23 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. Homestead 24 Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural and 25 jurisdictional defects and holding a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus, a court 26 “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or 27 not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995). 28 /// 1 II. Discussion and Analysis 2 The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 3 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 4 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also California v. 5 United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). “It does not suffice to show that a federal 6 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would 7 arise under federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009). Instead, the complaint 8 must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s right to 9 relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin 10 Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th 11 Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 12 Significantly, unlawful detainer is the only cause of action identified by Deutsche Bank 13 National Trust Company in the complaint. (See Doc. 1 at 19.) An unlawful detainer action does not 14 arise under federal law but arises instead under state law. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Sherzad, 2022 WL 15 913251, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (a complaint for unlawful detainer “relies solely on California 16 state law and does not state any claims under federal law”); Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 WL 13359134, 17 at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state 18 court”). Thus, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company did not raise a claim that invokes federal 19 subject matter jurisdiction. 20 III. Conclusion and Order 21 Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 22 jurisdiction and the action must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any 23 time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 24 shall be remanded”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Tulare County for lack of subject 26 matter jurisdiction. 27 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the unlawful detainer action (Doc. 2) is terminated as 28 MOOT. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this matter. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 5, 2023 Charis [Tourn 5 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28