Federal National Mortgage Association v. Chance
Filing
4
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/11/2013 DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; RECOMMENDING that the 3 Motion to Vacate be denied; RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
No. 2:13-cv-0445 KJM CKD PS
SCOTT CHANCE,
15
16
17
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 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. Defendant has failed to meet his 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
Defendant has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The amount of
8
defendant’s income demonstrates that he is able to pay the fee. The motion will therefore be
9
denied. Defendant also has filed a motion to vacate a state court judgment. Because there is no
10
basis for removal of this action in the first instance, this court is without jurisdiction to address
11
defendant’s motion. Moreover, this court does not sit as an appellate court over state court
12
judgments.
13
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2) is denied; and
15
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
16
1. The motion to vacate (dkt. no. 3) be denied; and
17
2. The above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of
18
California, County of Sacramento.
19
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
20
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
21
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
22
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
23
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
24
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
2
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: March 11, 2013
4
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
4 fnma-chance.remud
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?