The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT (Dkt. 5) JS-6 Proceedings:
On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the present Unlawful Detainer action to the San Bernardino County Superior Court (the "Motion"). The Motion is currently set for a hearing on January 30, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-15, the Court has been advised that the parties have waived oral argument with respect to the Motion. The Court approves the request for waiver of argument. It also finds independently that this matter is appropriate for ruling without oral argument. For these reasons, the Court takes the January 30, 2012 hearing off calendar and issues this written ruling with respect to the Motion.
Plaintiffs failed to file any timely opposition to the Motion. This alone provides an independent basis for granting such motion. Local Rule 7-12 ("The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."). Independent of this ground for remand, the Court finds that remand is required because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Thus, notwithstanding the assertion by Defendants in their Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1) that this action raises "federal questions," the complaint does not. Indeed, the Unlawful Detainer Complaint (Dkt. 1, Exh. A) does not contain a cause of action that raises a federal question, does not show a complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and does not show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Central District, Case No. UDDS1103991.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...