Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Esparza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 15, 2010

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ETC.
v.
PEDRO ESPARZA

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Lisa Bredahl Not Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A., etc. ("Plaintiff") filed this case in state court for unlawful detainer. Defendant Pedro Esparza ("Defendant") then filed a Notice of Removal, which removed this case from state to federal court. For the reasons that follow, the Court REMANDS the case to state court.

Plaintiff's Complaint states a simple state cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant's Notice of Removal argues that federal jurisdiction is proper because of pleadings he intends to file and because the FDIC is a party. But a review of the law and of the Complaint and Notice of Removal make clear that Defendant's arguments fail. The FDIC is not a party, and there is simply no basis for federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002) ("Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [defendants] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.").

Further, in unlawful detainer actions, "[s]peedy adjudication is desirable to prevent subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss and the tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental agreement gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property." Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 (1972). Improper removal of unlawful detainer cases harms the concerns stated in Lindsey. Defendant and his counsel are cautioned not to improperly seek federal jurisdiction, particularly for delay.

In sum, Defendant fails to establish that federal jurisdiction exists over this case. Thus, the case is REMANDED to the appropriate state court.

20100715

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.