Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Pentagon Federal Credit Union v. Ali Makki et al

January 23, 2011

PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
v.
ALI MAKKI ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Gary Allen Feess

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL LINKS: 1, 4

Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff Pentagon Federal Credit Union ("PFCU") filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Ali Makki and Michael Vincent in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Docket No. 1 [Not. of Removal], Ex. A [Compl.].) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased Defendants' real property in Los Angeles by virtue of a lawful foreclosure sale on February 3, 2011, and that Defendants have continued to possess the premises despite Plaintiff's multiple demands to pay rent or quit the premises, in violation of Rent Stabilization Ordinance section 151.09A(1). (Id. ¶¶ 7--18.) Defendants demurred to Plaintiff's Complaint on August 5, 2011, arguing that the unlawful detainer notice was defective because it failed to comply with the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Not., Ex. B [Demurrer] at 4--5.) This demurrer was overruled. (Not. ¶ 9.)

Defendants removed the action to this Court on November 29, 2011, alleging federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the demurrer raises a question of federal law. (Id. ¶ 6, 8, 10.) The Court concludes that the lawsuit does not arise under federal law and hereby REMANDS the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II.

DISCUSSION

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . ." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Here the district court had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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