Natoma Meadows Homeowners Association v. Clark

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/8/15 RECOMMENDING that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

NATOMA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-0745 KJM CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
LELAND CLARK,
Defendant.

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 party invoking removal

22

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

23

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

24

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the removal
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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 advised

13

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

14

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

15

Dated: April 8, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18

4 natoma-clark.remud

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2