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)

Download PDF
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

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?