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.

Household Finance Corporation of California v. Maurice D. Madison and Hanna M. Madison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 23, 2011

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAURICE D. MADISON AND HANNA M. MADISON, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego on March 10, 2011. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants filed a notice of removal in federal court soon thereafter. (ECF No. 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand. (ECF No. 3.) After consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

In cases "brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction," a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). However, courts "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Therefore, "[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). The removing party bears the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

Defendants' notice of removal indicates that removal is pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court looks to the plaintiff's complaint. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 US 826, 830 (2002). The Court does not consider the defendant's answer, defenses, or counterclaims. Id. 831. In this case, Plaintiff's underlying claim is an unlawful detainer action filed pursuant to California state law. (ECF No. 1-1.) There is no federal question basis for removal. Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110623

© 1992-2011 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.