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

Filing 5

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King: IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, 303 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). IT IS SO ORDERED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ad) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2013: # 1 CV-103) (ad).

~

/; FILED

~

t

b

1

~

2

20r3 JAN 22 AM 9: 2 ,

3

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL nisi Of' CALIF.

5

i

8~~ER.S~~. ,'_

4

.~

6

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

1

11

j

12

,

COLFIN AI-CA 4, LLC,

Case No, EDCVI3-0063-UA (DUTY)

Plaintiff,

j

13

14

vs.

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

ELDA MARTINEZ,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

19

r

E
!-

7

j

;

The Court wil remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily
because it has been removed improperly.

20

On January 9, 2013, 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 . proceedinformapauperis. 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

..

..

t.

f

r=

1

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 controversydoes not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold

5

unlawful-detainer
complaint recites that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000.

6

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

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

12

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

13

(3) that the Clerk serve copies of

this Order on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

!

16

DATED:

t4~ß'?

18

CHIEF UNlTED STATES DIS

19

20
21

22

21

~

~

t
~.
1.
e

r

legal question.

Nor does plaintiffs unlawful detainer action raise any federal

9

17

~

F
i
of$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the contrary, the

7
8

~

Presented by:

t/lfL

David T. Bristow
_United

States

Magistrate Judge

24
25

26

27
28
2