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.

Archon Investments, Inc v. Daniel Freier and Does 1 - 10 Inclusive

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


July 14, 2011

ARCHON INVESTMENTS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
DANIEL FREIER AND DOES 1 - 10 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge

JS-6

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [4]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Archon Investments, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 4.) Defendant Daniel Freier ("Defendant") has failed to timely oppose the Motion. The Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15, and for the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Plaintiff instituted this unlawful detainer action in state court. On May 11, 2011, Defendant removed this case alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff contends, however, and the Court agrees that a federal question does not present itself in an unlawful detainer action. Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) ("Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists."). In addition, although not raised by Defendant, the Court notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete" diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement must be met. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Defendant's removal fails to establish complete diversity between the parties. Also, from the face of Plaintiff's complaint, it is apparent that Defendant will be unable to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking.

In light of the foregoing, no subject matter jurisdiction exists. The Court, therefore, REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The July 18, 2011 hearing is hereby VACATED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110714

© 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.