US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen
- James Donato
- 3:25-cv-04123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen, Judge Kim recommended remanding the eviction case and granted defendants’ fee-waiver applications.
The ruling affects US National Bank Association’s state eviction action against Susanna Roux Van-Greunen and Ronald White. The federal court granted the defendants’ fee-waiver applications, ordered reassignment to a district judge, and recommended returning the case to state court; the text does not state whether the district judge later adopted that recommendation.
What happened
US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen concerns an eviction case that defendants Susanna Roux Van-Greunen and Ronald White removed from California state court. They argued that a federal foreclosure-tenant law created a federal claim, and they applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the eviction claim arose only under California law and that the federal law defendants relied on had expired and did not create a private claim. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because defendants had not shown that more than $75,000 was at stake and the complaint alleged that they lived in California, where the case was filed.
Judge Sallie Kim granted defendants’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered the case reassigned to a district judge. Judge Kim recommended that the district court remand the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court; the parties had 14 days to object.
The detailed version
- US National Bank Association v. Van-Greunen · No. 3:25-cv-04123
- James Donato
- May 15, 2025
Background
US National Bank Association as Trustee for Angel Oak Mortgage Trust I 2019-2, Mortgage Backed Certificates, Series 2019-2, filed an unlawful detainer action in Contra Costa County Superior Court to evict Susanna Roux Van-Greunen and Ronald White from a property in Antioch, California. Van-Greunen and White, who were representing themselves, removed the action to federal court on May 13, 2025, and applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
The parties had not consented to a magistrate judge’s authority to issue a final decision. The court therefore ordered the case reassigned to a district judge and issued a report and recommendation concerning remand.
Fee-waiver applications
The court found that defendants showed they could not pay the filing fee and granted their applications to proceed without prepaying it. The court also noted that the fee-waiver statute permits dismissal of a case in specified circumstances, including when a complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, and that the court independently must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal-question jurisdiction
The court concluded that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction generally exists when federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action or when the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal issue. The court held that unlawful detainer is created by California law, not federal law.
Defendants argued that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 preempted state eviction law and created a federal claim for ejectment. The court stated that the Act expired at the end of 2014 and that the Ninth Circuit had held it did not create a private right of action. The court therefore concluded that the Act could not provide a federal ejectment claim. It also explained that a federal defense, including preemption, generally cannot create removal jurisdiction.
Diversity jurisdiction
The court also concluded that diversity jurisdiction was absent. In an unlawful detainer action, the dispute concerns possession rather than title, and damages are limited to amounts connected to the alleged unlawful possession. The complaint did not state the amount of damages, and the court found it unlikely that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Defendants had not shown to a legal certainty that the amount exceeded that threshold.
The court identified an additional problem under the rule barring removal by a defendant who is a citizen of the state where the action was filed. The complaint alleged that defendants resided at the property in Contra Costa County, California. The court therefore concluded that defendants were precluded from removing the action based on diversity jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and recommended that the district court remand the action to Contra Costa County Superior Court. The court ordered the case reassigned to a district judge, granted defendants’ applications to proceed without prepaying filing fees, and stated that any party could object to the remand recommendation within 14 days of the order’s filing.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.