Federal National Mortgage Association v. Liebmann

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/14/11 recommending that this Action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, 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-11-2962 MCE CKD PS

vs.
MARGARITA LIEBMANN,
Defendant.

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
26

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges defendant was deprived of due
process and equal protection but does not allege a proper basis for removal. It appears the state
1

1

court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court action is

2

titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and

3

the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile

4

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: November 14, 2011

16

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19

4 fhlmc-liebmann2.remud

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2