HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit et al

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Su perior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ifany of the Defendants violate the Court's order, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00 against each Defendant.(See minute order for further details) Superior Court State of CA for Los Angeles, Case number 17UR0160 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (yl)

Download PDF
JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 17-5433-JFW(JEMx) Title: HSBC Bank USA, National Association-v- Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit, et al. Date: August 1, 2017 PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly Courtroom Deputy None Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT On January 20, 2017, Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit, Ignacia Zuniga, Celia Jimenez and Jose D. Avila in Los Angeles Superior Court. On July 24, 2017, Defendant Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit ("Defendant Ponvanit") filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant Ponvanit bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendant Ponvanit fails to meet her burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant Initials of Deputy Clerk sr Ponvanit alleges in her Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because the Defendants have abused the removal process by filing six frivolous removals, the Defendants in this action are hereby barred from filing any further notices of removal of this case without an order of this Court allowing them to do so. If any of the Defendants violate the Court's order, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00 against each Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

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?