Maxum Investments, LP v. Motz

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/30/14 RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. This matter referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAXUM INVESTMENTS, LP,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-CV-1698 KJM CKD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ERIC MOTZ,
Defendant.

16
17

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly

18

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

19

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

20

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal

21

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039

22

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

23

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

24

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal

25

question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a

26

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

27

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

28

petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action,
1

1

and the state court action is titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing

2

federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State

3

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

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be
summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Dated: July 30, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18

4 maxum-motz.remud

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2