Szmania v. E-Loan, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER re 72 Answer to Complaint (Notice of Removal), Counterclaim, filed by Plaintiff Daniel G Szmania; this Court will not act on either of the recent filings, or on any other filings made to this Court while the appeal is pending; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

DANIEL G SZMANIA,

CASE NO. C16-5644RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

v.

11

ORDER

E-LOAN, INC.,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. This case was dismissed with

15

prejudice in November 2016. [Dkt. #64]. Szmania appealed the same day this Court denied his

16

Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #s 67, 68].

17

Szmania has recently filed an “Answer and Notice of Removal” [Dkt. #72], apparently

18

purporting to remove to either this Court or the Ninth Circuit a state law unlawful detainer action

19

pending against him. He also filed a second “Answer to Complaint” [Dkt. #74], apparently

20

related to the state court unlawful detainer case.

21

This Court no longer has jurisdiction over Szmania’s claim, due to his appeal of its order

22

dismissing that claim with prejudice. Even if it did, Szmania’s effort to remove the state law

23

claim here is improper for a number of reasons: the removal notice is facially untimely, and

24

ORDER - 1

1

Szmania has not identified any basis for this Court’s (much less the Ninth Circuit’s) jurisdiction

2

over the unlawful detainer claim. Indeed, he cannot. The sole issue in an unlawful detainer action

3

is possession of property. See Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Shoemaker, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

4

36171, at *8–9 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005) (referencing RCW 61.24.060). “[T]here is no

5

amount in controversy. …” Id. Because Szmania cannot meet 28 U.S.C. § 1332’s amount-in-

6

controversy requirement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the purportedly removed action.

7

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 and FRAP 12.1, if the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the

8

limited purpose of remanding the state law case to state court, this Court would do so. Otherwise,

9

this Court will not act on either of the recent filings, or on any other filings Szmania makes in

10

this court while the appeal is pending.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated this 25th day of May, 2017.

14

A

15

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

13

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2