UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 2, 2009
DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, F.A.
GUADALUPE ARTEAGA CONTRERAS ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CATHERINE JEANG NOT PRESENT N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Proceedings: (In Chambers:)
ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On August 19, 2008, plaintiff Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Guadalupe Arteaga Contreras, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased property located at 6914 Lubao Avenue, Canoga Park, California 91306 ("the property"), at a trustee's sale following foreclosure proceedings. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff further alleges that it served defendants, who allegedly occupied the property without consent, a written notice requiring delivery of the property within three days. Id.¶ 8. Defendants allegedly refused to vacate and deliver possession of the property. Id. ¶ 10. On September 3, 2008, defendants timely removed the instant action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal
On November 4, 2008, the Court ordered that plaintiff show cause as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has not received a response from plaintiff.
The question of whether a claim arises under federal law, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, must be determined by reference to the complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1983). If it "appears from the ... statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States," this Court will have jurisdiction. Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921).
Date March 2, 2009
Defendants fail to allege that plaintiff's claim arises under any federal law. Defendants merely allege that federal jurisdiction results from the defendants's discovery request and demands for "the original blue inked promissory note." Notice of Removal at 2. Without a showing that plaintiff's right to relief depends on a substantial question of federal law, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer CMJ
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.