Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Phillips et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending that action be summarily remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/25/2013. These Findings and Recommendations are SUBMITTED to District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M)

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. 2:13-cv-0147 GEB CKD PS

vs.
KEVIN PHILLIPS, 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
26

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to
federal question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when
1

1

a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

2

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the

3

removal petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer

4

action, and the state court action is titled as such. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of

5

establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally

6

Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

7
8
9

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

10

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

11

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

12

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

14

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are

15

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

16

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

Dated: January 25, 2013

18

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
4 fhlmc-phillips.remud

21
22
23
24
25
26
2