(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hines
2:12-cv-01683
E.D. Cal.Jun 28, 2012Background
- Wells Fargo Bank filed an unlawful detainer action against Freda Hines in Sacramento County; Hines removed to federal court on June 25, 2012.
- Court has independent duty to determine jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Removal asserts federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331, but the complaint contains only state-law unlawful detainer claims.
- Well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal jurisdiction; a defendant’s claims or defenses cannot create federal question jurisdiction when the complaint itself is purely state law.
- Defendant argued PTFA defenses; courts hold PTFA defenses cannot create removal jurisdiction.
- The case must be remanded to state court as there is no proper basis for federal jurisdiction; a remand is recommended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is removal proper under the well-pleaded complaint rule? | Wells Fargo argues no federal claim is pleaded. | Hines argues federal question exists via removal under 1331. | Not proper; no federal question on face of complaint. |
| Can PTFA defenses support removal jurisdiction? | Hines asserts PTFA-based defenses. | PTFA defenses do not create federal jurisdiction. | PTFA defenses do not establish jurisdiction. |
| Is the removal timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)? | N/A | Removal filed long after initial pleading. | Untimely removal; improper under §1446(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal jurisdiction must be rejected if doubt exists about removal right)
- Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal question arises only from properly pleaded complaint)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (strictly construed removal jurisdiction against removal)
- Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (defines federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1998) (notice of objections time considerations in appeals)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (timing and procedural requirements for objections)