Martingale Investments LLC v. Bruce Beck et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIASUPERIOR COURT, SAN BERNARDINO 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 San Bernardino. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (ad)

PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-01814-VAP (DTBx)

Date: October 23, 2013

Title:

MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS, LLC -v- BRUCE BECK AND DOES 1
TO 10
===============================================================
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, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY(IN
CHAMBERS)

On August 13, 2013, Martingale Investments, LLC, ("Plaintiff") filed a
"Complaint for Unlawful Detainer" against Defendant Bruce Beck ("Defendant"). (Ex.
1 to EDCV13-1814 Not. of Removal.) On October 4, 2013,Defendant filed a Notice
of Removal Action. (("Not. of Removal") EDCV13-1814.) Defendant removes the
action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1343. (Not. of Removal ¶¶ 5-6.) For the following reasons, the Court
REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 1

EDCV 13-01814-VAP (DTBx)
MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. BRUCE BECK AND DOES 1 TO 10
MINUTE ORDER of October 23, 2013

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Ninth
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.")
First, Defendant’s removal is untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), the
notice of removal of a civil action shall be filed within 30 days after Defendant
receives a copy of the Complaint upon which the removal action is based. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b)(1). Defendant was served with the Complaint on August 13, 2013. (Not.
of Removal ¶ 3.) Defendant did not file his Notice of Removal until October 4, 2013,
more than 30 days after he received a copy of the Complaint. Accordingly, removal
is time-barred.
Second, Defendant alleges diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removal. From
the face of the Complaint, however, Defendant does not meet the diversity of
citizenship or amount in controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is “not organized or licensed to do
business in California,” but does not allege Plaintiff’s citizenship or that the parties
are citizens of different States. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.) Defendant also does not
allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Id.
Third, Defendant alleges original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Civil
Rights and Elective Franchise, as a second basis for removal. Section 1343 gives
federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions to: recover damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985; redress the deprivation by the State of any right, privilege
or immunity secured by the Constitution; and to recover damages or equitable relief
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 2

EDCV 13-01814-VAP (DTBx)
MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. BRUCE BECK AND DOES 1 TO 10
MINUTE ORDER of October 23, 2013

under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. 28 U.S.C. §
1343(a). From the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful
detainer. Unlawful detainer does not serve as a basis for original jurisdiction under
section 1343.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 3