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)

Download PDF
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

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?