The Bank of New York Mellon v. Nicoll
4:12-cv-01089
N.D. Cal.Jun 15, 2012Background
- BNYMoral The Bank of New York Mellon filed a residential unlawful detainer in Sonoma County Superior Court.
- Defendants William and Eva Nicoll removed the case to this Court on March 5, 2012.
- Court sua sponte remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Removal standards require strict construction and the defendant bears the burden to show removability.
- Court found no federal question or diversity jurisdiction and thus no subject matter jurisdiction; case remanded to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there federal question jurisdiction? | Nicolls argued foreclosure defense implicates federal law. | Foreclosure act defense creates federal question. | No federal question; well-pleaded complaint rule applies. |
| Is there diversity jurisdiction and amount in controversy? | Plaintiff sought damages up to $10,000. | Diversity could exist if amount exceeded $75,000. | No diversity jurisdiction; amount in controversy under $75,000. |
| Should the case be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? | N/A | Removal proper under federal question/diversity theories. | Remand appropriate; lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) (federal question jurisdiction exists only on face of complaint)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal jurisdiction)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defenses do not create federal question jurisdiction)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (plaintiff's complaint controls for removal amount/dederal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strict construction of removal jurisdiction; doubts resolved in favor of remand)