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

Opinion

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

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to San Joaquin County Superior Court for all future proceedings. Dated: October 29, 2021 Lh Ion Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k