Ruiz et al v. Cabrera et al

Filing 3

ORDER That Case be Reassigned to a District Court Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Notice of Removal. Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/3/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2010)

Download PDF
Ruiz et al v. Cabrera et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION VALENTIN RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ, v. Plaintiffs, No. C10-03358 HRL ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION *E-FILED 08-03-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JULIO CABRERA, BEATRIZ A. MONTOYA CABRERA, PHILLIP J. DAUNT, ATTORNEY, and DOES 1-50, Defendants. / On July 29, 2010, Valentin and Jose Ruiz filed the instant action. Although they refer to themselves here as the "Federal Plaintiffs," it appears that they are the defendants in an unlawful detainer action pending in Monterey County Superior Court. They now attempt to remove that matter here, with a request that this court stay those proceedings. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily remanded to state court. Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1441. If, after a court's prompt review of a notice of removal "it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). These removal statutes are strictly construed against Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 removal and place the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate that removal was proper. MooreThomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. A claim "arises under" federal law if, based on the "well-pleaded complaint rule," the plaintiff alleges a federal cause of action. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy this requirement. Id. at 1273. Here, Valentin and Jose Ruiz request that this court exercise "supplemental jurisdiction" over this matter. They assert that the opposing parties and their attorney have failed to comply with certain state law requirements with respect to the unlawful detainer action. Further, they indicate that they have a separate lawsuit pending in state court concerning the same property. However, they fail to demonstrate any basis for federal jurisdiction. Moreover, allegations in their removal notice or in a response to plaintiffs' unlawful detainer complaint cannot provide this court with federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, Valentin and Jose Ruiz have failed to show that this court has jurisdiction over this matter or that removal is proper on account of any federal substantive law. Nor does the record presented establish that this court might have subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned's jurisdiction, this court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge summarily remand the case to Monterey County Superior Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. Dated: August 3, 2010 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:10-cv-03358-HRL Notice mailed to: Valentin Ruiz 656 San Juan Grande Road Salinas, CA 93906 Jose Ruiz 656 San Juan Grade Road Salinas, CA 93906 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?