Federal National Mortgage Association v. Hahn et al

Filing 5

ORDER (1) Vacating Hearing; (2) Granting Motion To Remand; And, (3) Denying As Moot Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Re Docs. 4 , 2 ): The hearing on the motion that is currently set for 7/25/2013 is VACATED and the matter is taken under submis sion without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Defendant Yumi Hahn failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion within the time specified by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. The Cour t REMANDS this action to the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. Defendant's pending Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service; certified copy sent to State Court via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
vs.

Plaintiff,

13
14

YUMI HAHN,

CASE NO. 13CV1111 JLS (NLS)
ORDER (1) VACATING HEARING;
(2) GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND; AND, (3) DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(ECF Nos. 4, 2)

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage
Association’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 4). The hearing on the
motion that is currently set for July 25, 2013 is HEREBY VACATED and the
matter is taken under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7.1(d)(1).
Defendant Yumi Hahn (“Defendant”) failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion within the time specified by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. See CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c).
Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to remand must be granted
on its merits because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a state law
action for unlawful detainer. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction
Laborers Vacation Trust For S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). Defendant’s
-1-

13cv1111

1 assertion of counterclaims or defenses under the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure
2 Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq., or other federal statutes, does not create federal
3 question jurisdiction. See id. Finally, diversity jurisdiction is also absent in this
4 matter because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
5 1332.
6

For these reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court for

7 the County of San Diego. Defendant’s pending Motion to Proceed In Forma
8 Pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is DENIED AS MOOT.
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11 DATED: July 19, 2013
12
13

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

13cv1111