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.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Tomme Simmons Ii Et

February 7, 2012

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
v.
TOMME SIMMONS II ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

LINK: 5

Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants Tomme Simmons II and Erica M. Simmons in Riverside County Superior Court. (Docket No. 1 Not., Ex. A [Compl.].) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased Defendants' real property in Riverside, California at a lawful foreclosure sale on June 15, 2011, and that Defendants have refused to quit the premises. (Id. ¶¶

Defendants removed the action to this Court on January 12, 2012, invoking federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Not. at 2.) On January 27 Deutsche Bank filed a motion remand to the case back to Riverside County Superior Court and requested attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Docket No. 5.) Defendants did not timely file an opposition to the motion. On that basis alone, the Court could grant the motion. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 ("The failure to file any required paper . . . may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."). However, in the interest of creating a complete record, the Court will address the merits of Plaintiff's motion.

Because the Court concludes that the lawsuit does not arise under federal law, it GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and REMANDS the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

LINK: 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ...


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.