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.

Housing Fund Investors, LLC v. Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 27, 2010

HOUSING FUND INVESTORS, LLC
v.
JESUS FLORES, ALHELI FLORES, AND DOES 1 TO 10

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 Housing Fund Investors, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed this case in state court for unlawful detainer. Defendants Jesus Flores and Alheli Flores ("Defendants") 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. Defendants Notice of Removal argues that federal jurisdiction is proper "based upon federal question jurisdiction." (Notice of Removal 1.) But a review the Complaint makes clear that Defendants' argument fails. The Complaint does not rely on any federal law, so Defendants have not demonstrated a 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. Defendants are cautioned not to improperly seek federal jurisdiction, particularly for delay.

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

20100927

© 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.