UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 10, 2011
SHELLY VON BRINCKEN,
MORTGAGECLOSE.COM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez U. S. District Court Judge
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Shelley Von Brincken's Notice of Removal (Doc. 44), and finds that removal is improper. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry before the adjudication of any case before a court, see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988), and a court "ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has subject-matter jurisdiction." Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1999). "Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove an action filed in state court to federal court if the federal court would have original subject matter jurisdiction over the action." Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2009). "A defendant cannot remove solely on the basis of a federal defense . . . the 2 federal question must appear on the face of the complaint."
Chesler/Perlmutter Prods., Inc. v. Fireworks Entertainment, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1058 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2001). 5
Here, Plaintiff asks the court to remove the unlawful detainer 6 action filed against her in the Superior Court, and consolidate it 7 with Plaintiff's current District Court case, on the basis of 8 original jurisdiction. However, the unlawful detainer action 9 against Plaintiff contains no federal claims and is based purely on state law. The federal statutes cited in Plaintiff's Notice of Removal would, at best, provide only federal defenses. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, and orders the action entitled Federal National Mortgage Association v. Shelley Von Brincken remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.