Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc v. Wagner
Filing
3
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/15/2011 ORDERING that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on 3/14/2012 is VACATED. 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. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND
FINANCE, INC.,
11
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-2944 LKK EFB PS
12
vs.
13
14
15
ROBERT WAGNER, and DOES 1-25,
inclusive,
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
/
16
17
On November 7, 2011, defendant Robert Wagner, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of
18
removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for
19
Solano County. Dckt. No. 1. This case is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 636(b)(1) and 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, defendant has failed to meet that burden.
Defendant’s notice of removal is predicated upon the court’s federal question
3
jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 1 at 2. However, a review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff does not
4
allege any federal claims; instead, plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. Id. at
5
10-13 (Compl.). Therefore, because defendant has not adequately established that plaintiff’s
6
complaint alleges a federal claim,1 the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand
7
the case.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
8
9
10
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference
currently set for hearing on March 14, 2012 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.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
1
Nor has defendant established that this court has diversity jurisdiction.
16
2
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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, although the complaint
was filed in state court on August 22, 2011, defendant does not indicate when defendant was
served with or otherwise received a copy of the complaint. Dckt. No. 1 at 1, 10.
Additionally, although defendant’s notice of removal indicates that a demurrer was filed
in state court, which the state court did not sustain, Dckt. No. 1 at 1-2, defendant failed to file a
copy of any state court order sustaining the demurrer, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). See
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (providing that removing defendants “shall file in the district court of the
United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of
removal . . . , together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such
defendant or defendants in such action.”).
24
3
25
26
As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the
November 7, 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
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
2
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
3
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
4
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
5
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th
6
Cir. 1991).
7
Dated: November 15, 2011.
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?