Lily Company v. Jordan

Filing 4

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/16/14 ORDERING that the 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice and RECOMMENDING that this action be remanded to the Superior Court. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LILY COMPANY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2115 TLN CKD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND

KALEEDAH JORDAN,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing

22

federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life and Accident

23

Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d

24

769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986)). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

25

case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

26

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

27

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

28

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar
1

1

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

2

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

3

and the state court action is titled as such. Defendant also contends the action is properly

4

removed under diversity jurisdiction. However, there are no allegations regarding the citizenship

5

of the parties and the amount of controversy is not met on the face of the complaint. Defendant

6

has failed to meet the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore

7

be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d

8

373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

9
10
11
12
13
14

Defendant has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will
recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded
to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Dated: September 16, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26

4 lily-jordan.ifp.remud

27
28
2