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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?