Canterbury Lots 68 LLC v. Benjamin Delgadillo et al

Filing 5

ORDER by Acting Chief Judge Dean D. Pregerson summarily remanding improperly-removed action to Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Northeast District, Pasadena Courthouse, 300 East Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91101; Case number 13P00423. (SEE ATTACHED REMAND ORDER) [Case Terminated, Made JS-6] (Attachments: # 1 letter to Superior Court) (esa) (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/19/2013) (esa).

HLEO
1
2

7013 APR 18 P11 5:16

3

FCT COURT
CLERK U.
CENTRAL 0IS1I OF CALIF.
RV CR3 IDE

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CANTERBURY LOTS 68, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

Case No. CV 13-2201-UA (DUTYx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

BENJAMIN DELGADILLO, et
al.,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
summarily because defendant removed it improperly.
On March 27, 2013, defendant Janine Delgadillo, having been sued in what

21

appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court,

22

lodged a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court, and also presented an

23

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter

24

application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To

25

prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this

26

Order to remand the action to state court.

27

Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in
the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either
1

1 diversity or federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28
2 U.S.C. § 1441 (a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,
3
4

563 1 125 S. Ct. 2611 3 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Here, defendant has asserted both
federal question and diversity jurisdiction as her basis for removal. But as

5

described in more detail in the Order Denying Defendant’s Request to Proceed

6 Without Prepayment of Filing Fee, because the unlawful detainer action to be
7 removed does not actually raise any federal claim, and because the amount in
8 controversy does not exceed $75,000 and there is no allegation of diversity of
9 citizenship, there is no basis to assert either federal question or diversity
10 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441.
11

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

12 Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Northeast District, 300 East
13 Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this
15 Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the
16 parties.
17
18
19 DATED: . 4
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

its
CHIEF UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

Actink

le

wk~-TE-R5;04

U