Dayco Funding Corporation v. Eric Christopher Chen

Filing 5

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: This case is before the Court on the Motion to Remand 3 . Plaintiff has moved to remand to state court on the basis that Defendant untimely removed the action, and because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant has failed to oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Letter of Transmittal - Remand to Superior Court). (jp)

O

LASC, Case No.: BC459587

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-05498 AHM (AJWx)

Title

DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER CHEN

Present: The
Honorable

Date

August 2, 2011

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

This case is before the Court on the motion to remand filed by plaintiff Dayco
Funding Corporation (“Plaintiff”).1 On April 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an unlawful
detainer complaint in state court against defendant Eric Christopher Chen (“Defendant”).
The complaint explicitly does not state the amount in controversy. Defendant removed
the case to this Court on July 1, 2011.
Plaintiff has moved to remand to state court on the basis that Defendant untimely
removed the action, and because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant has failed to oppose the motion. “The failure to file any required
paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting
or denial of the motion.” Local Rule 7-12. In addition, the motion to remand appears
meritorious on its face. The amount in controversy is undoubtedly well under $75,000
and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a federal question at issue in the unlawful detainer
action.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
:
Initials of Preparer

SMO

JS-6

1

Docket No. 3.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1