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.

Ittleson Sjs Hotel LLC v. Sjs Properties Group; and Does 1 To 20

April 11, 2011

ITTLESON SJS HOTEL LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SJS PROPERTIES GROUP; AND DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO REMAND.

I.INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Plaintiff‟s motion to remand the case to Fresno County Superior Court. Doc. 4. Defendant, proceeding in pro per, filed an opposition (Doc. 7), to which Plaintiff replied (Doc. 8).

II.BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer by Purchaser Against Occupant Holding Over After Non-judicial Sale (CCP § 1161a(b)(3)) ("Complaint") in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Doc. 1, Ex. A. The Complaint seeks (1) possession of the San Joaquin Suites ("Property"), which Plaintiff alleges it purchased at a trustee‟s sale in compliance with California Civil Code § 2924; (2) statutory damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1174(b); (3) actual damages; and (4) reasonable attorneys‟ fees.

Defendant removed the case to federal court on February 15, 2011. Doc. 1. On March 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Doc. 4. Plaintiff contends that remand is proper because:

(1) the removal was procedurally defective, (2) there is no federal question jurisdiction, and (3) this is another delay tactic designed to frustrate Plaintiff‟s attempt to secure possession of the Property. Defendant opposed the motion (Doc. 7), to which Plaintiff replied (Doc. 8).

III.LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides in pertinent part:

[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. "The threshold requirement for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is a finding that the complaint contains a cause of action that is within the original jurisdiction of the district court." Hunter v. Philip Morris USA , 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co. , 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). "A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction." Hunter v. Philip Morris USA , 582 F.3d at 1042.

To protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co. , 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005)

(citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets , 313 U.S. 100, 108-09, 61 S.Ct. 868 (1941)). Any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). It is presumed "that a cause lies outside [the] limited jurisdiction [of the federal courts] and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Hunter v. Philip Morris USA , 582 F.3d at 1042 (quoting th Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co. , 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9 Cir. 2006) (alterations in original).

IV.ANALYSIS

A.Procedural ...


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.