The Bank of New York Mellon v. Diana Moussaoui et al

Filing 6

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. Date CV 13-01766 DMG (AJWx) Title The Bank of New York Mellon v. Diana Moussaoui, et al. Present: The Honorable JS-6 March 25, 2013 Page 1 of 1 DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk NOT REPORTED Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present 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. 1 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. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk vv