The Bank of New York Mellon v. Diana Moussaoui et al
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Because Defendant has not established a basis for removal jurisdiction on the face of the Notice of Removal, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 12H02865. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CV 13-01766 DMG (AJWx)
Title The Bank of New York Mellon v. Diana Moussaoui, et al.
Present: The Honorable
March 25, 2013
1 of 1
DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On August 19, 2012, Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) filed a Complaint in
Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer against Defendant Diana Moussaoui.
[Doc. # 1, Ex. A]. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on March 12, 2013, arguing that the
unlawful detainer action was carried out in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5220, and thus that this
Court has federal question jurisdiction. [Doc. #1]. The Complaint, however, raises no federal
question.1 Federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009).
Additionally, it appears that removal was untimely because Defendant waited more than 30 days
to file the Notice of Removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
“The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking
removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir.
2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a “strong
presumption against removal jurisdiction,” and courts must reject it “if there is any doubt as to
the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex
rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Defendant has not established a basis for removal jurisdiction on the face of the
Notice of Removal, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Defendant has only attached pages 1, 3, and 5 of the complaint, so it is impossible to state with certainty
what is missing, but the Notice of Removal does not indicate the existence of a federal question and the burden of
proving jurisdiction is on the removing party.
Initials of Deputy Clerk vv