Equity Residential Management, LLC v. Parker et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; Remanding Case to State Court. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service).(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT,

8

LLC,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 16-cv-02304-EMC

v.
LILLIE PARKER, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; REMANDING
CASE TO STATE COURT
Docket Nos. 3-5, 7

Defendants.

13
14

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff Equity Residential Management, LLC filed the instant

15

unlawful detainer action against Defendants Lillie Parker, Vernest Parker, and Jamaal Parker.

16

Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal) at 5-11. On April 27, 2016, Defendants removed the action to

17

federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction. Defendants also filed motions to proceed in

18

forma pauperis. Docket Nos. 3-5.

19

On May 3, 2016, Judge James issued her report and recommendation, recommending that

20

the Court remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. Docket No. 7 (R&R).

21

Specifically, Judge James found that there was no federal question jurisdiction because the

22

complaint asserted only one state law claim for unlawful detainer. Id. at 2. Judge James also

23

concluded that there was no diversity jurisdiction because the defendants appear to be citizens of

24

the state in which the plaintiff originally brought the action, i.e., California. Id. at 2-3; see also 28

25

U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of jurisdiction under

26

section 1332(a) of this title [i.e., diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in

27

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is

28

brought”). Furthermore, the amount in controversy was not met because the damages claim is for

1

under $10,000, well under the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000. Id. at 3; see also Cal. Civ.

2

Proc. § 86(a)(4) (stating that an unlawful detainer is a limited civil action where the “whole

3

amount of damages claimed” must be “twenty-five thousand ($25,000) or less”).

4

The R&R was served on Defendants by mail that same day. See Docket No. 7-1. The

5

Court has not since received any objection to the R&R from Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

72(b)(2) (providing that “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended

7

disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

8

recommendation.”). Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition to the R&R. Docket No. 10.

9

The Court has reviewed Judge James’s report and recommendation; finds it correct, well-

Judge James’s well-reasoned report and recommendation, and REMANDS the instant case to the

12
For the Northern District of California

reasoned, and thorough, and therefore adopts it in every respect. Hence, the Court now ADOPTS

11

United States District Court

10

Superior Court of Alameda County. Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis are

13

DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

14

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 3-5 and 7.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: May 24, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2