Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ismael Ramirez et al
Filing
8
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter: This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to San Bernardino Superior Court, Case Number UDFS1501709, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: None Present. (gk)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV15-567 JFW(PLAx)
Title:
Federal National Mortgage Association -v- Ismael Ramirez, et al.
Date: March 26, 2015
PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SAN BERNARDINO
SUPERIOR COURT
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Ismael and Maria Emma Ramirez
(“Defendants”) in San Bernardino Superior Court. On March 24, 2015, Defendant Ismael Ramirez
filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant Ismael Ramirez bears the burden of
demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992);
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Defendant Ismael Ramirez fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant
Ismael Ramirez alleges in his Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n
unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed,
must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999,
*2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question
jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to San Bernardino Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?