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.

Harmin Investments, Lp #109 v. Essi Mansoori; Hedieh Mansoori; and Does 1-20

January 18, 2012

HARMIN INVESTMENTS, LP #109, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ESSI MANSOORI; HEDIEH MANSOORI; AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed January 18, 2012 **

NOT FOR CITATION

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 5]

INTRODUCTION

On December 6, 2011, third-party claimant Miles Dawson, proceeding pro se, removed this case 19 from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 ("Notice of Removal"). Plaintiff Harmin 20 Investments ("Harmin") moves to remand. Dkt. No. 5. Neither Dawson nor the named defendants 21 have opposed the motion. Because none of the parties have consented to the undersigned's 22 jurisdiction, this court in unable to provide the dispositive relief sought. For the reasons stated 23 below, the undersigned ORDERS that this case be reassigned to a district judge, and 24 RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff's motion to remand be VACATED and the case summarily 25 remanded. 26

DISCUSSION

Harmin filed this unlawful detainer action against defendants Essi and Hedieh Mansoori on August 23, 2011 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, p. 3 ("Complaint").

According to the complaint, Harmin acquired the subject property, a San Jose residence, through a 2 foreclosure trustee's sale on August 8, 2011, in accordance with California Civil Code section 2924. 3

¶ 8. Defendants did not respond to the Notice, nor did they vacate the property. Id. at ¶ 9. 5

6 matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal jurisdiction can be based on 7 diversity of citizenship or on the existence of a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 8

Complaint at ¶ 6. On August 8, Bay Valley served defendants with a three-day Notice to Quit. Id. at 4

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have had original subject

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Ordinarily, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 9 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Id. Thus, "the plaintiff [is] the 10 master of the claim; he or she may ...


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.