Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awwad et al
Filing
3
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/21/2011 ORDERING that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on 11/30/2011, is VACATED; RECOMMENDING that this action be Remanded to Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano; Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I
INC. TRUST 2006-HE3,
12
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-1942 JAM EFB PS
13
vs.
14
SAMER AWWAD; ABIR N. AWWAD,
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
Defendants.
16
17
/
On July 25, 2011, defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this
18
unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for Solano County.
19
Dckt. No. 1. This case is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
20
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).
21
This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua
22
sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of
23
establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is
24
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,
25
1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right
26
of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As
1
1
2
explained below, defendants have failed to meet their burden.
Defendants’ notice of removal is predicated upon the court’s federal question
3
jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 1 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b), 1446(a)). Defendant contends that
4
“[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” Id. However, a review of the complaint reveals
5
that plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer
6
under state law. Dckt. No. 1-1 at 15-17 (Compl.). Therefore, because defendants have not
7
adequately established that plaintiff’s complaint alleges a federal claim,1 the court lacks subject
8
matter jurisdiction and must remand the case.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
9
10
11
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference
currently set for hearing on November 30, 2011, is vacated.3
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be REMANDED to
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
18
19
1
20
2
21
22
23
Nor have defendants established that this court has diversity jurisdiction.
It is also unclear whether the notice of removal was timely. Section 1446(b) requires a
notice of removal to be “filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which
such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the
defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on
the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, defendants note that the
complaint was filed in state court “[o]n March 11, 2011,” but do not indicate when they were
served with or otherwise received a copy of the complaint. Dckt. No. 1 at 1.
24
3
25
26
As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the July
25, 2011 order. See Dckt. No. 2. However, if the recommendation of remand herein is not
adopted by the district judge, the undersigned will reschedule the status conference and require
the parties to submit status reports.
2
1
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
2
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
3
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th
4
Cir. 1991).
5
Dated: September 21, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?