Roem Builders Incorporated v. Parker

Filing 4

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/28/17: This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. CASE CLOSED (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROEM BUILDERS INCORPORATED,

8

No. 2:17-cv-00632-GEB-CKD

Plaintiff,
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

9

v.

10

KUMBA PARKER,

11

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

On March 27, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Joaquin.
(“NOR”), ECF No. 1.)

22
23
24
25

For the following reasons, the Court sua

sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for
the

County

of

San

Joaquin

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

20
21

(Notice of Removal

“There
jurisdiction,’

is
and

a
the

‘strong

presumption

removing

party

establishing that removal is proper.”

has

against
the

removal

burden

of

Lindley Contours, LLC v.

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
“If

at

any

time

before

final

judgment

it

appears

that

the

26
27
28

*

The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a
Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this
case.

1

1

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

2

be remanded.”

3

- remand [a case] sua sponte if it determines that it lacks

4

subject matter jurisdiction.”

5

08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15,

6

2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins.

7

Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

8
9

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendant
removal

asserts

jurisdiction
which

NOR

that

federal

on

his

“Answer

against

the

unlawful

based

to

the

11

complaint by asserting that Plaintiff “failed to comply with The

12

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act [12 U.S.C. § 5220].” (NOR

13

&& at 8 and 10.)

can[]

defends

question

complaint”

However,

he

the

10

14

in

GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-

in

exists

“The court may - indeed must

Defendant
be

has

predicated

not

shown

“that

on

[his]

an

detainer

Federal

15

jurisdiction

16

anticipated defense” to the pled unlawful detainer lawsuit. Vaden

17

v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Therefore this case is

18

remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of

19

San Joaquin.

20

Dated:

March 28, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

actual

or