Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Liebmann et al
Filing
5
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/24/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. 1 Referred to Judge Morrison C. England; 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
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-2724 MCE CKD PS
vs.
MARGARITA LIEBMANN, et al.,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are
18
strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064
19
(9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
20
removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of
21
establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life
22
and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New
23
York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter
24
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
25
In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges defendants were deprived of
26
due process and equal protection but does not allege a proper basis for removal. It appears the
1
1
state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court
2
action is titled as such. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal
3
jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm
4
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).
5
6
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be
summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
8
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
9
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
10
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
11
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
12
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are
13
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
14
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
Dated: October 24, 2011
16
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
4 fhlmc-liebmann.remud
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?