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.

Cal Vista Home Loans v. Mitchell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 6, 2010

CAL VISTA HOME LOANS
v.
JAMES MITCHELL

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT

On July 6, 2010, Defendant James Mitchell, representing himself in pro per, removed this action from the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California to the United States District Court, Central District of California on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.").

Defendant states that the basis for removal is a "violation of the Federal law and The U.S. Constitution" (Notice of Removal ¶ 2). Defendant fails to point out what federal laws or portions of the Constitution have purportedly been violated. The Court's careful review of the Complaint filed by Cal Vista Home Loans Inc. ("Plaintiff") on March 25, 2009, shows that Plaintiff raised no federal question therein. Plaintiff's Complaint is a discrete action for unlawful detainer post foreclosure sale conducted on November 7, 2008, an action which exclusively invokes authority pursuant to California statute. The Complaint does not set forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States for which the Court would have "original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to his Notice of Removal. Accordingly, Defendant's removal is improper for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100806

© 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.