Gill Family Properties LLC v. James Patrick O Brien et al

Filing 8

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge George H. Wu Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the SuperiorCourt of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk, 111 North Hill St., LosAngeles, California 9001 2 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 15U05017 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (pj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

GILL FAMILY PROPERTIES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES PATRICK O’BRIEN, ALL
)
OCCUPANTS,
)
Defendants. )
)

No. CV 15-5121-GW(FFMx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT

15
16
17
18

The Court will remand this action to state court summarily because Defendant
removed it improperly.
On July 7, 2015, Defendant James Patrick O’Brien, having been sued in what

19

appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court (Los Angeles

20

Superior Court Case No. 15U05017), filed a Notice of Removal of that action to this

21

Court and also presented an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.

22

The Court has denied the application under separate cover because the Court lacks

23

jurisdiction over the action. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo,

24

the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

25

Simply stated, as the Court has previously determined, Plaintiff could not have

26

brought this action in federal court in the first place, in that Defendant does not

27

competently allege facts supplying either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and

28

therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah

1

Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Even if

2

complete diversity of citizenship existed, the amount in controversy does not exceed the

3

diversity-jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the

4

contrary, the unlawful-detainer complaint recites that the amount in controversy does not

5

exceed $10,000.

6
7
8
9

Nor does Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk, 111 North Hill St., Los

10

Angeles, California 90012 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3)

12

that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: July 21, 2015
GEORGE H. WU
United States District Judge

16
17
18

Presented by:

19
20
21

/S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM
FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2