Accredited REO Properties LLC v. Genardo Witt et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court orders Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Monday, December 17, 2012 showing cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers. (lc). Modified on 12/5/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ACCREDITED REO PROPERTIES,
LLC,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

GENARDO WITT; ROSALBA
CORTES; EDWIN CEBALLOS;
LOURDES MANCILLA; EDWARD
DIAZ; GLORIA ELIZABETH DIAZ,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-09711 DDP (VBKx)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

18
19

Removing Defendant Edward Diaz is ordered to show cause why

20

this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of

21

subject matter jurisdiction.

22

complaint on September 11, 2012.

23

removed to this court on the basis of both federal question and

24

diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal 4, 10, 13.)

25

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer
On November 13, 2012, Defendant

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a defendant may remove to federal

26

court “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have

27

original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the

28

Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States . . . .”

1

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a

2

suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement

3

of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal

4

law.”

5

quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . .

7

federal question jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated

8

counterclaim.”

9

court may exercise diversity jurisdiction when there is complete

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal

Id.

“Federal law cannot be

(citations omitted).

Nor can

Alternatively, a federal

10

diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds

11

$75,000.

12

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Here, nothing on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint suggests a

13

federal question.

14

complaint that an amount well under $75,000, and indeed well under

15

$10,000, is at issue.

16

Furthermore, it appears from Plaintiff’s

(Complaint at 1, 3.)

The court notes that the Defendant has the burden of

17

establishing removal jurisdiction.

18

Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Monday,

19

December 17, 2012 showing cause why this action should not be

20

remanded for lack of jurisdiction.

21

courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring

22

Street, Los Angeles.

23

explanatory brief as consent to remand this matter.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Accordingly, the court orders

Defendant should also deliver a

The court will regard any failure to file an

25
26

Dated: December 5, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2