PennyMac Holdings, LLC v. Sparks et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/5/15 RECOMMENDING that this aciton 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. Matter referred to Judge Morrison C. England. Jr.. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0948 MCE CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GORDON WILLIAM SPARKS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

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).
In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to diversity

24
25

jurisdiction. The court takes judicial notice of the records of the California Secretary of State

26

which establish that plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Moorpark, California. The removal petition alleges that defendant1 is domiciled in California.

2

Accordingly, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Moreover, the unlawful

3

detainer complaint alleges that the fair rental value of the premises is $50 per day. In light of the

4

allegations of the complaint regarding damages, the amount in controversy required for diversity

5

jurisdiction plainly cannot be met. Defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing

6

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

7

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

8
9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Dated: May 5, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

4 pennymac-sparks.remud

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although two defendants are named in the unlawful detainer action, both defendants have not
joined in the petition for removal.
2