Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Stolte

Filing 8

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT. Objections due by 9/9/2014. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 08/26/14. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/27/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-02138-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JEFFREY M. STOLTE,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO REMAND CASE TO STATE
COURT; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 9, 2014, Defendant Jeffrey M. Stolte, who proceeds pro se, removed this unlawful

14

detainer action from Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) This

15

is the second time he has done so since Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC originally filed the

16

case in state court. See Stolte v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 13-cv-05539-JCS. In the notice

17

of removal, Defendant states that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. (Notice of

18

Removal ¶ 3.) The face of the complaint, however, indicates that this is a "limited civil case,"

19

with the "amount [demanded] not to exceed $10,000.00." (See Compl.)

20

On August 5, 2014, the undersigned ordered Defendant to show cause why this case

21

should not be remanded to Contra Costa County Superior Court for lack of federal jurisdiction.

22

(Order, Dkt. No. 7.) Defendant was to file a written response to the order within 14 days. As of

23

the filing of this report and recommendation, Defendant has not filed a response to the order to

24

show cause.

25

Here, the only claim in Plaintiff's complaint is one for unlawful detainer. (See Compl.)

26

This does not present a federal question. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. 10-5478

27

(PJH), 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011). Moreover, the amount in controversy is

28

less than $10,000. (See Compl.) This falls well below the $75,000 threshold for diversity

1

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this

2

case.

3

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this action be remanded to Contra Costa

4

County Superior Court. Furthermore, as Defendant has not consented to the undersigned's

5

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned orders that this case be reassigned to a

6

district judge.

7

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge

8

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

9

N.D. Civil L.R. 72-2. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568 EDL, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: 08/26/14
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2