Opinion
Case No.: 13-CV-00364
03-18-2013
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS ARM TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-10 Plaintiffs, v. ALFRED SILVA, and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive, Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND
(Re: Docket No. 6)
On January 30, 2013, Defendant Alfred Silva ("Silva") removed this case from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiffs US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Arm Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-10 ("Plaintiffs") brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in state court, and Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of presenting a defense or claims under The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220. The parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
See Docket Nos. 7, 16; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Federal courts are limited in their jurisdiction to either (1) diversity cases where citizens of two different states have a dispute involving an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000 or (2) federal questions where the cause of action - not the defense - "arises under" federal law. The parties have not alleged diversity, nor does the cause of action plead in the complaint - unlawful detainer - arise under federal law. The court also notes that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not provide a cause of action for tenants.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 154 (1908).
See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Case No. 09-6096 PVT, 2010 WL 2179885 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2010).
Defendant only argues that the case should be retained because he is planning to file another action, Farah v. Wells Fargo, which should be related to this case. Defendant argues Farah v. Wells Fargo will involve causes of action for fraud and deceptive business practices, invoking a federal question.
Originally, the court noted Defendant had not filed a motion to relate. It has come to the court's attention that a motion to relate was filed erroneously in Farah v. Wells Fargo but not the present case. The motion to relate has now been correctly filed in the present case. Even with this information, however, the court reiterates that a motion to relate cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on an otherwise infirm claim. A motion to relate is merely an administrative motion that assigns cases involving the same or similar parties, property, transaction or events to the same judge in the interests of judicial economy. As an administrative tool, relation cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction. This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
See Farah v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 13-1127 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013).
See Civ. Local Rule 3-12.
--------
Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that this case be remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge