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.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Yvonne Munoz et al.

April 6, 2011

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION
v.
YVONNE MUNOZ ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Not present Not present

Proceedings: ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION (In Chambers)

On March 15, 2011, Defendants Yvonne Munoz and Ismael Antonio Sorto (collectively, "Defendants") removed this state court action to federal court. (See Notice of Removal ("Notice"); docket no. 1.) Having reviewed this matter, the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the reasons stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2010, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. ("Plaintiff") filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Notice, Ex. A at 1.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns and is entitled to possession of real property located at 411 1/2 East 46th St., Los Angeles, CA 90011 (the "premises"). (Id.) Plaintiff seeks damages of $30.00 per day from December 2, 2010, until the date that judgment for Plaintiff is entered by the court. (Id. at 2.) The Complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. (Id. at 1.) On March 15, 2011, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (Noticeat 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have only that power authorized by Article III of the Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 534 (1986); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removing party "always has the burden of establishing that removal was proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction; doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. , 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 ("Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.").

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT ...


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.