Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Miguel Lozano et al

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Accordingly, 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); (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 onCase Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103) (am) Modified on 7/11/2013 (am).

...
1
2

CD

I

~

3
4

'

!

'

5
6

n

~::;:;
z:::o
-tX

8
9

c=

c...a

f:
i~~ ..,
:z
n-t
..
:::0

;::,)>~

-,-<.n

<oo

I

\D

fTJ-,1("")

)>(")

7

-

~

r--o

I . ~~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

.11:-

c;.)

\D

10
11
12

WELLS FARGO BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

18

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

MIGUEL LOZANO AKA JOSE
MIGUELLOZANO;ADAN
FERNANDEZ AKA ADAN
FERNANDEZ, SR. THE
MUSIC ROQ~hA BUSINESS
OF UNKNOwN FORM· AND
DOES 1-100 IN OCCUPANCY,
INCLUSIVE,

19

Case No. EDCV 13-1121-UA (DUTYx)

Defendants.

15
16
17

20
21
22
23

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

24

On June 24, 2013, defendant The Music Room, having been sued in what

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from
1

..,
-

r
,
0

....
1 remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to
2

state court.

3

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

4

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

5

diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28

6

U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs .. Inc., 545 U.S. 546,563,

7

125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005).

8

To the extent defendant asserts 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as a basis for jurisdiction, that

9

provision is a federal criminal statute, and, as such, defendant may not maintain an

10

action thereunder, as the Attorney General of the United States, or his designee, is

11

vested with the exclusive authority to maintain federal criminal proceedings.

12

Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254,262,42 S. Ct. 309,66 L. Ed. 607 (1922); U.S. v.

13

Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297, 1299-300 ("[o]nly officers ofthe Department of Justice or

14

the United States Attorney can represent the United States in the prosecution of a

15

criminal case.")

16
17

See~

Nor does plaintiffs unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

18

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

19

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

20

Bernardino, CA 92415, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21

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

22

(3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the p

23
24

IT IS SO O~ERED.
DATED:
7 ~~ '3

25

PrTtf?L

26
27
28

l~r!f1

~·

Acting Chief Judge

David T. Bristow
United States Magistrate Judge
2