Samantha De Silva v. Specialized Loan Service, Inc.

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Judge James V. Selna: The Court has reviewed the notice of removal filed by Specialized LoanService (Specialized) on May 19, 2017. (Docket No. 1.) The notice purports to remove a $304 small cl aims dispute from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. The Court notes that the attempted at removal here hardly comports with the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide for a just, speed y, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. (Fed. R. Civ. R.1.) Removal denied plaintiff her June 6, 2017 hearing on her $304 claim. Specializeds filing fee was more than the amount of the dispute. *Refer to Order for details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-880 JVS (JCGx)

Title

DeSilva v. Specialized Loan Service

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 15, 2017

James V. Selna
Karla J. Tunis

Not Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

Order Remanding Action

The Court has reviewed the notice of removal filed by Specialized Loan
Service (‘Specialized”) on May 19, 2017. (Docket No. 1.) The notice purports to remove
a $304 small claims dispute from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange.
Plaintiff states her claim as follows:
“The nature of this complaint is towards (1) professional negligence and (2)
misrepresentation of services. The defendant wrongfully filed a negative
report on plaintiff’s credit after assuring of receipt of payment.”
Plaintiff neither explicitly nor impliedly invokes any federal statute or other basis for
relief under federal. There are several obvious potential theories for liability under state
law.
Contrary to the notice, plaintiff does not invoke the Fair Credit Report Act
or any other federal statute. (Notice, p. 2.)
Because no other basis of jurisdiction than 28 U.S.C. § 1331,which is absent,
is asserted, the Court remands the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 17-880 JVS (JCGx)

Title

DeSilva v. Specialized Loan Service

Date

June 15, 2017

Finally, the Court notes that the attempted at removal here hardly comports
with the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide for a “just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” (Fed. R. Civ. R.
1.) Removal denied plaintiff her June 6, 2017 hearing on her $304 claim. Specialized’s
filing fee was more than the amount of the dispute.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

kjt

Page 2 of 2