(UD)(PS)Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Sherzad ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WELLS FARGO BANK; NATIONAL No. 2:22-cv-00552-TLN-CKD ASSOCIATION, As trustee for structured 12 mortgage investments II Inc; BEAR STEARNSMORTGAGE FUNDING 13 TRUST 2006-AR2; and MORTGAGE ORDER PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, 14 Series 2006-AR2, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 ATALL SHERZAD; MIZHGAN ALAM, 18 Defendants. 19 20 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Atall Sherzad and Mizhgan Alam’s 21 (“Defendants”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin due to 23 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On September 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Wells Fargo Bank; National Association, As trustee for 3 structured asset mortgage investments II Inc.; Bear StearnsMortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR2; 4 and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR2 (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action for 5 unlawful detainer against Defendants for possession of real property located at 16777 English 6 Country Trail, Lathrop, CA 95330 (the “Property”). (ECF No. 1 at 5, 13.) On March 28, 2022, 7 Defendants filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the San 8 Joaquin County Superior Court. (See id.) 9 II. STANDARD OF LAW 10 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 11 district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is 12 proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 13 filed in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 14 Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 15 defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 16 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 17 determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 18 improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 19 v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 20 U.S. 974 (2005). 21 Federal question jurisdiction is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The 22 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 23 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 24 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. 25 Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, 26 or third-party claim raising a federal question. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60–62 27 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 /// 1 Til. ANALYSIS 2 Defendants removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. | at 2.) 3 | To support their claim of federal question, Defendants argue “Plaintiff's claim is based upon a 4 | notice which expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 5 | 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201.” (Ud. at 2-3.) Despite Defendants’ assertion, it is clear the Complaint 6 | itself contains only a single claim for unlawful detainer. (/d. at 5-15.) The instant Complaint 7 | therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law. 8 | Based on the well-pleaded complaint rule as articulated above, “federal jurisdiction exists only 9 | when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” 10 | Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. 11 Defendants have failed to establish their burden of showing that jurisdiction before this 12 | Court is proper based on federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this 13 | case, sua sponte, for lack of federal jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & 14 | Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject 15 | matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or 16 | not.”). 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior 19 | Court of California, County of San Joaquin. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | DATED: March 28, 2022 yy / 22 (| / 23 “ MAN i Vonckay 24 Troy L. Nuhlep> ] United States District Judge 25 26 27 28