Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Garcia et al
Filing
11
ORDER Adopting 10 Findings and Recommendations to Remand The Matter to The Kern County Superior Court and to Dimiss the Matter, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/6/12. CASE CLOSED. Copy of remand order sent to Kern County Superior Court. (Gonzalez, R)
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
18
FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
SERGIO GARCIA, an individual,
)
MARK LOPEZ, an individual, and
)
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01370 AWI JLT
ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND THE
MATTER TO THE KERN COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT AND TO DISMISS THE
MATTER
(Doc. 10)
Sergio Garcia (“Garcia”) seeks removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in Kern County
19
Superior Court by the plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. (Doc. 1). On September
20
27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended the matter be remanded the plaintiff’s motion to
21
remand the matter to Kern County Superior Court be granted. (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge
22
noted Garcia had removed the matter previously, and Garcia’s Petition for Removal “contains
23
identical language to the Petition for Removal filed May 4, 2011.” (Doc. 10) (comparing Case No.
24
1:11-cv-00711-AWI-JLT, Doc. 1 with Case No.: 1:11-cv-01370-AWI- JLT, Doc. 1).
25
To remove a case to federal court in cases involving multiple defendants, such as the current
26
matter, the “rule of unanimity” requires that all defendants must join in a removal petition.
27
Wisconsin Dept of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 393 (1998), citing Chicago, Rock Island, &
28
Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248 (1900). The Magistrate Judge found Garcia failed
1
1
to indicate his co-defendant joins or consents to the removal, a deficiency that was also present in his
2
first attempt to remove the matter. In addition, the Magistrate Judge found Garcia failed to file his
3
notice of removal within the thirty days required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
4
As the party seeking removal to the federal Court, Garcia “bears the burden of actually
5
proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” Sanchez v.
6
Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566-67
7
(9th Cir. 1992). The Magistrate Judge found that the underlying complaint in the unlawful detainer
8
action establishes the Court lacks jurisdiction, because an unlawful detainer action arises under state
9
law. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. Solih Jora, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105453, at *4 (E.D.
10
Cal. Oct. 1, 2010); Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94996, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal.
11
Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action
12
that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for
13
federal question jurisdiction exists.”). Further, to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in
14
controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, the
15
Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an amount less than $10,000. Therefore, the
16
Magistrate Judge concluded the Court lacks subject matter and diversity jurisdiction.
17
Although Garcia was granted fourteen days from September 27, 2011, or until October 11,
18
2011, to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, he did not do so.
19
Notably, Garcia was advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
20
right to appeal the Court’s order. (Doc. 10 at 5).
21
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley
22
United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of
23
the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and
24
recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1.
27
28
The Findings and Recommendations filed September 27, 2011, are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
///
2
1
2.
2
3
and
3.
4
5
The matter is ORDERED to be REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court;
The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action because this order terminates
the action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated:
0m8i78
February 6, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?