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)

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-