Colfin AI-CA 4 LLC v. Elda Martinez et al

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDDS1204667. (See document for specifics) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (adu)

1

2

co

-(

3

(" c:
("r ,.
rrri c.
%:: c.
-¡Ã
::c: :P

- JO.

.,r"~

4

rr2~':2

;;, (f (j~

5

z
I

w

6~.:~ti
P1-qc)
("--1
;.~("

r:

;T.fi

6

-0

-.

roO

7

-I

8

:i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

12

Plaintiff,

13

14

Case No. EDCVI2-2241-UA (DUTYx)

COLFIN AI-CA 4, LLC,
vs.

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

ELDA MARTINEZ and DOES 1
to 5,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

19

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily

because it has been removed improperly.

20

On December 19, 2012, defendant Elda Martinez, having been sued in what

21

appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a

22

Notice of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented an application to

23

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

24

cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from

25

remaining in

26

state court.

jurisdictional

limbo, the Court issues this Order

to remand the action to

27

Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in

28

the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either
1

r

-'r

fT

0

~,

I 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, 563,

3 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Even if complete diversity of citizenship
4 exists, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold

5 of$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the contrary, theunlawful-detainer
6 complaint recites that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $10,000.
legal question.

7 Nor does plaintiffs unlawful detainer action raise any federal

8

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

9

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

10

Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, 303 West 3rd Street, San

11

Bernardino, CA 92415-0240, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

12

U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of

13

court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

14

this Order to the state

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

16
17

DATED:

¡

lyJAIL

18

19

20
21

22
23

Presented by:

JlIl-L
David T. Bristow
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25

26
27
28
2