U S Bank National Association v. Marcos Melchor 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 UDFS1401624. (See document for specifics) Made JS-6. Case Terminated. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (adu)

,.
FILED
1
2

201~ JUN

3

18 PH t.: ItS

CLERK U.S. OISTF:lCT COURT
CENTRAL 0 ~T. OF CALIF.

4

RIV

SIDE

5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION NOT IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL CAP A CITY.,_,
BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTtE
FOR THE RMAC PASSTHROUGH TRUST, SERIES
2013-A,

15

Case No. EDCV 14-1186-UA (DUTYx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

Plaintiff,

16

vs.

17

MARCOS MELCHO~ AND
INDIVIDUAL· TERE~A
MELCHOR1 AN INDIVIDU{\J.;
SRIRAM SATHYAMOORTt1 I
AND INDIVIDUAL AND
DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,

18
19
20
21

Defendants.

22
23
24

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

25

On June 10, 2014, defendant Marcos Melchor, having been sued in what

26

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

27

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

28

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter application under separate
1

I •

1 cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from
2

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

3

state court.

4

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

5 the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either
6

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

7 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs .. Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563,
8

125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Even if complete diversity of citizenship

9

exists, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold

10

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

11

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

12
13

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

14

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

15

Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, 17780 Arrow Highway,

16

Fontana, CA 92335, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 144 7(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and

18

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

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

DATED:

ftJ (!fa (t

f

-....:.__.j'---'---------JJ'---11~-

23
24
25
26
27
28

Presented by:

t(f'fL
David T. Bristow
United States Magistrate Judge
2