Andina Property LLC v. Fox ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDINA PROPERTY LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00320-PJH 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT AND DENYING 10 LAURA FOX, REQUESTED ENFORCEMENT 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 9 12 13 The court is in receipt of self-proclaimed defendant “Tom Hernandez of-the- 14 Ramirez family’s” (“Hernandez”) Ex Parte Motion “for the Enforcement of the Automatic 15 Stay due to the Jurisdiction of the Federal District Court.” Dkt. 9. In it, Hernandez 16 requests that this court issue an order that (1) voids any filing or order made in the San 17 Francisco Superior court action (CUD-19-664902) since this matter has been removed to 18 this court and (2) limits the scope of any order that a state court officer may make 19 pending this action’s maintenance in this court. Dkt. 9 ¶ 8. 20 Based on the underlying state court complaint (Dkt. 5-2 at 4-7), this court lacks 21 federal subject jurisdiction over this action. Significantly, Hernandez is not a named party 22 to this action, Dkt. 5-2 at 5 ¶¶ 6-7, the only claim presented in the underlying complaint 23 (for unlawful detainer, id. at 4) is non-federal in nature, and the “[a]mount demanded does 24 not exceed $10,000,” id. On February 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Corley issued a 25 screening order directing Hernandez to address these apparent shortcomings1 and 26 27 1 Dkt. 6 at 1 (“The Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to show cause as to (1) how 1 Hernandez failed to provide any response. Given such failure, the court concludes both 2 that Hernandez may not seek the relief requested because he lacked standing to remove 3 this action, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court of which the 4 district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 5 defendant or the defendants . . .”) (emphasis added), and that the court lacks federal 6 subject matter jurisdiction over this action under both a federal question theory, U.S. 7 Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Terrenal, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (no federal 8 question jurisdiction where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful 9 detainer”), as well as a diversity jurisdiction theory, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring that 10 “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000”). To the extent 11 Hernandez relies upon the numerous purported federal law violations by plaintiff listed in 12 the notice of removal, Dkt. 1 at 2-4, he has failed to show how any such violations confer 13 federal jurisdiction here. In any event, even if the court generously construed such 14 violations as affirmative defenses, they would still would not provide a basis for removal. 15 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“Thus, it is now settled law that a 16 case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . .”) 17 (emphasis in the original). As a result, the court DENIES Hernandez’s requests and sua 18 sponte REMANDS this action to the San Francisco Superior Court. Consequently, the 19 court TERMINATES Judge Corley’s March 2, 2020 report and recommendation (Dkt. 7). 20 Separately, the court notes that this removal is either the second or third time2 that 21 this action (CUD-19-664902) has been removed. On November 8, 2019, Chief 22 Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in Andina Property LLC v. Fox, et al., 19-cv-6168-JCS 23 ordered this action remanded to San Francisco Superior Court following its September 24 30, 2019 removal by defendant Laura Fox (“defendant Fox”). Dkt. 10 at 3. Neither 25 Hernandez nor defendants have demonstrated any change in pleading justifying 26 2 It appears that another self-claimed defendant, “Rodney Nathaniel of-the-Masterson- 27 family,” separately removed this action in Rodney Nathaniel of-the-Masterson-family v. 1 Hernandez’s January 15, 2020 removal. The court warns that any improper subsequent 2 removal by defendant Fox (or others on her behalf) will be subject to the appropriate 3 sanctions. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 12, 2020 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27