1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 COMMUNITY REALTY PROPERTY Case No. 24-cv-00774-TLT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 REMAND TO STATE COURT v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 10 DONALD GLAUDE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 B ACKGROUND 13 Defendant Donald Glaude (“Defendant”) removed the action from Alameda County 14 Superior Court on February 8, 2024. ECF 1. Defendant did so on the basis that there is a 15 “simultaneously pending civil action” in this Court that include federal questions. Not. of 16 Removal, ECF 1, at 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 17

(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 18 19 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). For the reasons herein, the Court 20 GRANTS the Motion to Remand. 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 Under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action from 23 state court to any federal district court with original jurisdiction.

(a). Removal 24 may be based on complete diversity of citizenship or if the state law action asserts a federal claim. 25 26 1 In the Motion to Expedite Hearing, ECF 10, at 3, Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant Donald 27 Glaude’s action in removing this case to this under the guise of federal question was done for the 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)&(c). However, a civil action removed on diversity of citizenship grounds is 1 2 improper if defendants joined are citizens of the state in which removal is sought.

1441(b)(2). A district court may have supplemental jurisdiction of all other claims that form part 4 of the “same case or controversy” as claims pending in federal court for which the court has 5 original jurisdiction.

(a). 6 DISCUSSION 7 I. The Case was Improperly Removed to Federal Court and Must be Remanded 8 1. The Case Does Not Implicate a Federal Question 9 10 The state action removed solely asserts a state law claim for unlawful detainer. Cal. Code 11 Civ. P. § 1161(a). Therefore, removal based on federal question jurisdiction is improper. See 28

(c). 13 2. Removal Based on Diversity of Citizenship is Improper Based on the 14 Forum Defendant Rule

15 The forum defendant rule provides that a civil action properly removable based on 16 diversity jurisdiction may not be removed if any of the defendants joined or served are citizens of 17 the forum state.

(b)(2). The forum defendant rule “confines removal on the basis 18 of diversity jurisdiction where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.” Lively v. Wild Oats 19 Mkts.,

(9th Cir. 2006). 20 In this case, the Defendant removing the action is a California resident. See Not. of 21 22 Removal, ECF 1, at 1 (providing Defendant’s California address). Therefore, the Forum 23 Defendant Rule bars removal otherwise proper under diversity jurisdiction grounds.2 24 3. Ancillary Jurisdiction Is Improper Because the District Court Dismissed 25 the Claims of the Federal Action

26

27 2 In any event, the action does not meet the amount in controversy requirement. See Not. of 1 A district court may have supplemental jurisdiction of all other claims that form part of the 2 || “same case or controversy” as claims pending in federal court that assert federal questions. 28

(a). But a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over any claim 4 || brought under Section 1367(a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 5 original jurisdiction.”

(c)(3). 6 In the removal notice, Defendant asserted an ancillary federal court proceeding 23-cv- 7 3 05429-TSH.? Not. of Removal, ECF 1, {| 14, at 5. However, Chief Judge Seeborg dismissed this

9 case on February 16, 2024. The Court ruled all but one of the claims was barred by res judicata. 10 Or. Granting Mot. to Dismiss, 23-cv-05429-RS, ECF 48, at 4-8. Additionally, the Court dismissed 11 a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for being time-barred under the appropriate statute of 12 || jimitations.4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION 14 3 The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand, ECF 9, because removal was improper. 15 Therefore, the Motion to Expedite Hearing, ECF 10, is MOOT. The case is hereby REMANDED 16 = to Alameda County Superior Court. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 This Order resolves ECF 9 & 10. 19 Dated: April 3, 2024 20 21 ( - Ye 22 TRINA I: 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 || 3 The Court notes that the correct citation is 23-cv-05429-RS. 7 * “The loan transaction to which Glaude refers in his amended complaint took place in May 2005.” Or. Granting Mot. to Dismiss, 23-cv-05429-RS, ECF 48, at 8 (noting that equitable tolling 2g || doctrine did not apply to the TILA claim). On March 5, 2024, Glaude appealed the final judgment. Not. of App., 23-cv-05429-RS, ECF 50.