US Bank National Association v. Nazie Azam

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. BANK NATIONAL No. 13-55729
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Successor in
Interest to Bank of America, National D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00633-JST-RNB
Association as Successor by Merger to
LaSalle Bank, National Association as
Trustee for Wamu Mortgage Pass-through MEMORANDUM*
Certificates Series 2006-AR12 Trust,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAZIE AZAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nazie Azam appeals from the district court’s order sua sponte remanding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action against her to California state court. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Patel v. Del Taco, Inc.,
446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly remanded the action because, even assuming that
the prosecution of the unlawful detainer action violated Azam’s right to racial
equality as a Persian-American, Azam failed to establish that the state court could
not enforce this right because a California statute or a constitutional provision
purported to command the state court to ignore her federal civil rights. See id. at
999 (setting forth Supreme Court’s two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443); California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir.
2004) (the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and
the burden of establishing such jurisdiction falls to the party seeking removal).
We do not consider Azam’s contentions regarding removal on the basis of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1441 because they are beyond the scope of review. See 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was
removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding
a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or
1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”).
Azam’s pending motions—including for judicial notice, to strike portions of
2 13-55729
the answering brief and for sanctions against plaintiff, and for a stay and injunction
pending appeal—as well as her request for reassignment of the action to a different
district court judge and district, set forth in her reply brief, are denied.
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal, set forth in its
answering brief, is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring
separately filed notice for damages and costs on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55729