LNV Corporation v. Kelly L Randle et al

Filing 8

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: (see document image for further details). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (ad)

PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-01584-VAP (SPx)

Date: September 10, 2013

Title:

LNV CORPORATION -v- KELLY L. RANDLE; FRED MITCHELL AND
DOES 1 THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY (IN
CHAMBERS)

On June 7, 2013 LNV Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed a "Complaint in Unlawful
Detainer" against Defendants Kelly L. Randle and Fred Mitchell ("Defendants").
(See Ex. A to EDCV 13-01584VAP(SPx) Not. of Removal.) On September 3, 2013,
Defendants removed the action on the basis of federal question and diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. (See EDCV 13-01584VAP(SPx) Not. of
Removal.) On September 4, 2013 Defendants filed an Amended Notice For
Removal. (See EDCV 13-01584VAP(SPx) Amended Not. of Removal.) For the
following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court
for the County of Riverside.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 1

EDCV 13-01584-VAP (SPx)
LNV CORPORATION v. KELLY L. RANDLE; FRED MITCHELL AND DOES 1 THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of September 10, 2013

Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. FedermanBachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford
Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). "If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.")
Defendant alleges the basis for removal is federal question and diversity
jurisdiction , 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332. From the face of the Complaint, however,
Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)
(holding that a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the basis
for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Without a federal
question, there is no federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS
this matter to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 2