U.S. Bank National Association v. Jackson et al
Filing
3
Order regarding Notice of Removal 1 . For the reasons stated in the Order, this case is remanded back to Josephine County Circuit Court. Signed on 11/01/2012 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (rsm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the CSMC
Trust 2006-CF1 CS Mortgage Pass-Though
Certificates, Series 2006-CF1 , through their loan
servicing agent Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
Case No. 1: 12-cv-0 1946-CL
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
BRUCE V. JACKSON; JEANETTE K. JACKSON ;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ; CREDIT BUREAU
OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY; CITIBANK SOUTH
DAKOTA NA; FIA CARD SERVICES NA;
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. ; DISCOVER
BANK; EQUITABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC;
UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA (INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE); CHASE BANK USA, NA;
LVNV FUNDING LLC; OCCUPANTS OF THE
PROPERTY,
Defendants.
PANNER, District Judge.
PlaintiffU.S Bank National Association initiated this judicial foreclosure action in the
Josephine County Circuit Court in Josephine County, Oregon. Defendants Bruce V. Jackson and
Page I - ORDER
Jeanette K. Jackson, proceeding prose, removed this action to federal district court on October
31 , 2012. The court sua sponte determines removal is improper and orders the action remanded.
ANALYSIS
A federal district court must remand a removed case to state court "if there is any doubt
as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). Generally, removal jurisdiction is coextensive with original diversity or federal question
jurisdiction. City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). However,
state court cases cannot be removed on the basis of diversity if any defendant properly joined and
served is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441(b)(2).
Defendants are citizens of Oregon. Dkt. No.1 at 3:12. Defendants' notice ofremoval
asserts that this court has removal jurisdiction because "diversity of citizenship exists between
the parties required in this action and who will appear, and the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75 ,000, exclusive of interest and costs." Dkt. No. 1 at 2:10. Defendants do not
allege another basis for removal , and plaintiffs complaint is not based upon any federal statute.
Because defendants are citizens of the same state in which the action is brought and only allege
federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity, defendants' removal of this case was improper.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the case is remanded to the Josephine County Circuit Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
/
day ofNovember, 2012.
~~
OWEN M. PANNER
United States District Judge
Page 2 - ORDER
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?