You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al v. Hoffman. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:13-cv-01185-MEJ Document4 Filed06/04/13 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH HOFFMAN and DIANE
HOFFMAN,

_____________________________________/

Defendants.

No. C 13-1185 MEJ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 15, 2013, Defendants Kenneth and Diane Hoffman removed this unlawful detainer


action from Contra Costa County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action does not
arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 2011
WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at
*2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, it appears that jurisdiction is lacking and the case should be
remanded to state court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants Kenneth and Diane Hoffman
to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court.
Defendants shall file a declaration by June 18, 2013, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on June
27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California. In the declaration, Defendants must address how this Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim.

Defendants should be mindful that an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not

sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir.1994). “A case may not be
removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the
plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue
in the case.” ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health and Environmental Quality




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

Case3:13-cv-01185-MEJ Document4 Filed06/04/13 Page2 of 3

of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410
F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer
jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in
the plaintiff's complaint.”). Thus, any anticipated defense, such as a claim under the Protecting
Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), Pub.L. No. 111–22, § 702, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009), is not a valid
ground for removal. See e.g. Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Montoya, 2011 WL 5508926, at *4
(E.D.Cal. Nov. 9, 2011); SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 2010 WL 4809661, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal. Nov.19,
2010); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at 2–3 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010); Aurora
Loan Services, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at * 1 (N.D.Cal. March 29, 2010).

The June 13, 2013 Case Management Conference is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2013

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

Case3:13-cv-01185-MEJ Document4 Filed06/04/13 Page3 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28



T
R
U
O
C
T
C
I
R
T
S
I
D
S
E
T
A
T
S
D
E
T
I
N
U





a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

v.

Plaintiff(s),

KENNETH HOFFMAN,

/

Defendant(s).

No. C 13-01185 MEJ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 4, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.


Kenneth and Diane Hoffman
1274 Lawrence Road
Danville, CA 94506

Dated: June 4, 2013

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Rose Maher, Deputy Clerk

3