Landeron, LLC v. Campos et al
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 4 Motion to Remand; and ORDER REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/16/2011. CASE CLOSED. Copy of remand order mailed to Kern County Superior Court. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
LANDERON, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ARNEL V. CAMPOS, YASSAMEIN W.
)
CAMPOS, and DOES 1 to 10 INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:11-cv-00475 LJO JLT
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMAND THE
MATTER TO THE KERN COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT AND TO DISMISS THE
MATTER
(Doc. 8)
Arnel Campos and Yassamein Campos (“Defendants”) seek to remove an unlawful detainer
18
action filed in the Kern County Superior Court by the plaintiff Landeron, LLC. (Doc. 1).
19
Defendants seek to challenge the unlawful detainer action and raises numerous “causes of action”
20
related to the foreclosure of the real property. Id. Defendants assert they have the right to removal
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1443, 1446(a), and 1446(b). Id. at 3.
22
On October 13, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended the plaintiff’s motion to remand
23
the matter to Kern County Superior Court be granted. (Doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge found
24
Defendants failed to establish any basis for federal court jurisdiction.
25
First, as the parties seeking removal to the federal court, Defendants “bear[] the burden of
26
actually proving facts to support jurisdiction.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403
27
(9th Cir. 1996), citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). The Magistrate Judge
28
found that the complaint in the unlawful detainer action makes no mention of the issues Defendants
1
1
alleges in their Notice of Removal, and an unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law,
2
but rather, state law. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Solih Jora, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105453 at
3
* 4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010). In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined Defendants sought federal
4
appellate review of the state court decision, which was not permitted under the Rooker-Feldman
5
doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
6
460 U.S. 462 (1983); Exxon Mobile Corp v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 292-93
7
(2005) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the district court from appellate review of “cases
8
brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
9
before the district court proceeding commenced . . .”).
10
Although Defendants were granted 14 days from May 24, 2011, or until June 8, 2011, to file
11
objections to the Magistrate’s Amended Findings and Recommendations, they did not. In
12
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School
13
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.
14
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation are
15
supported by the record and by proper analysis.
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
18
The Amended Findings and Recommendations filed May 24, 2011, are ADOPTED
IN FULL;
19
2.
The matter is ORDERED to be REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court;
20
3.
The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action because this order terminates
21
the action in its entirety.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated:
b9ed48
June 16, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?