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.

The Bank of New York v. Richard Lavilla et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 12, 2012

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
v.
RICHARD LAVILLA ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Sharon L. Williams Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Case

On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed an action for unlawful detainer in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against Defendants. Defendants were served with notice of the action that same day. On December 27, 2011, Defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal jurisdiction existing under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.").

Defendants state that the basis for removal is that the claims arise under federal law. Defendants fail to point out what federal laws or portions of the Constitution have purportedly been violated. The Court's careful review of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in Superior Court shows that this action is based entirely on state law. Defendants may not attempt to confer federal jurisdiction by raising issues of federal law in their Notice of Removal.

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

slw

Initials of Preparer

20120112

© 1992-2012 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.