From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Amil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 25, 2013
No. C 12-05522 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)

Opinion

No. C 12-05522 RS

03-25-2013

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FOR THE BENEFIT OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-1 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Plaintiff, v. ANDRES M. AMIL, II, DIANE D. AMIL., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION

This matter was filed as an unlawful detainer in Contra Costa Superior Court. Appearing in pro se, defendant Andres Amil filed a notice of removal, asserting a right to do so on the basis of both diversity of citizenship and purported federal questions. Upon removal, the action was randomly assigned to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the matter be remanded to state court for lack of a jurisdictional basis to support the removal. The matter was then reassigned to the undersigned for disposition.

The time for objecting to the Report and Recommendation has expired and no objections have been filed. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, removal jurisdiction based on federal question is absent. As further explained in the Report and Recommendation, courts have held that the "amount in controversy" in unlawful detainer actions is only the damages incident to the alleged wrongful possession, and under that analysis, the $75,000 minimum threshold is not satisfied here. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977)).

Moreover, even assuming the value of the real property should be considered in determining the amount in controversy, defendants are citizens of California and therefore are not entitled to removal on diversity grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). (A civil action "removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.") Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

RICHARD SEEBORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Andres M. Amil, II

103 Ellison Lane Richmond, CA 94801

Chambers Staff

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg


Summaries of

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Amil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 25, 2013
No. C 12-05522 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Amil

Case Details

Full title:BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FOR THE BENEFIT OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 25, 2013

Citations

No. C 12-05522 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013)