Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
v.
Gutierrez

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAFeb 10, 2012
Case No. ED CV 12-74 CAS (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012)

Case No. ED CV 12-74 CAS (SPx)

02-10-2012

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. GUTIERREZ


CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CATHERINE M. JEANG ¦Not Reported ¦N/A ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk ¦Court Reporter / Recorder ¦Tape No.¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:¦Attorneys Present for Defendants:¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Not Present ¦Not Present ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 15, 2011, plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association filed an unlawful detainer action in Riverside Superior Court against pro se defendant Estela Gutierrez. On January 13, 2012, defendant removed to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant asserts various federal claims in her notice of removal. See Dkt. No. 1.

II. DISCUSSION

The law is clear that "[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court." Federal Nat'l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) ("[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law."). A defendant's attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or asserting defenses. McAtee, 479 F.3d at 1145. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within twenty (20) days why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer SMOM