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.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Rick A. Jaquez; et al

February 6, 2012

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICK A. JAQUEZ; ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

** E-filed February 6, 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NOT FOR CITATION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. 1]

INTRODUCTION

On February 1, 2012, defendant Rick Jaquez, proceeding pro se, removed this case from Santa Cruz County Superior Court. Docket No. 1 ("Notice of Removal"). For the reasons stated 19 below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily remanded to state court. 20

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") filed this unlawful detainer action against Rick Jaquez, Marylou Jaquez, and six Doe Defendants on November 21, 2011 in Santa Cruz 23

County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, Ex. A ("Complaint"). According to the complaint, U.S. 24

Bank acquired the subject property through a foreclosure trustee's sale on October 19, 2011, in 25 accordance with California Civil Code section 2924. Id. at ¶ 5. On September 28, U.S. Bank served 26 the defendants with a three-day Notice to Quit. Id. at ¶ 6. Defendants did not respond to the Notice, 27 nor did they vacate the property. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. 28

2 matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal jurisdiction can be based on 3 diversity of citizenship or on the existence of a federal question. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 4

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). If, after a court's prompt review of a notice of removal, "it clearly appears on 5 the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the 6 court shallmake an order for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). These 7 removal statutes are strictly construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to 8 demonstrate that removal was proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 9

Here, the defendants assert that removal is proper based only on federal question

jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal at 2-3. Federal courts have original ...


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.