Jennings(s) v. Duke Partners II, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying plaintiff's 10 MOTION to Remand / MOTION for Severence, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _______________________________________ ) SUZANNE JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) DUKE PARTNERS II LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) No. C17-0969RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Remand; Motion for 15 Severance; In Rem Action; Reservation of All Rights Failure to State a Claim.” Dkt. # 10.1 For 16 the reasons set forth in the Court’s “Order Imposing Sanctions for Failure to Comply with LCR 17 10(e)(9)” (Dkt. # 22), only the first fifty pages of plaintiff’s submission have been considered. 18 The underlying matter was filed in state court by plaintiff against the purchaser of the 19 premises located at 6733 Holly Pl SW, Seattle, 99136. The complaint was captioned as an 20 unlawful detainer action: plaintiff alleges that defendants violated state foreclosure procedures 21 and the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and that these violations forfeited any right they 22 may have to the property. Plaintiff acknowledges that there are “limited federal issues” in the 23 complaint (Dkt. # 10 at 4), but argues that a federal court cannot assume jurisdiction over issues 24 25 1 26 The motion plaintiff filed with the Court is missing pages 2 and 3. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND 1 that have already been presented to the state court for resolution. Plaintiff is simply wrong on the 2 law. A defendant in state court has the right to remove a case to federal court if the case could 3 have been filed originally in federal court (i.e., on federal diversity or federal question grounds). 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because plaintiff asserted that Wells Fargo violated a federal law and it 5 appears that diversity jurisdiction exists, defendants were within their rights to remove this case 6 to federal court, thereby divesting the state court of jurisdiction. 7 8 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for remand is DENIED. 9 10 Dated this 25th day of October, 2017. 11 A Robert S. Lasnik, 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMAND -2-

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?