The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable VIRGINIA A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER: (1) REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; AND (2) DECLINING TO REACH DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)
On February 17, 2012, Plaintiff U.S. National Bank N.A., as Trustee for J.P.Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. 2005-WMC1, Asset Backed Pass-through Certificates, Series 2005-WMC1 ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint for unlawful detainer ("Complaint") against Defendant Lourdes Vega ("Defendant") in the Superior Court
California, County of San Bernardino. (Not. of Removal at 25.) On April 17, Defendant removed the action on the basis diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. BANK N.A. v. LOURDES VEGA, et al.
1332. (See Not. of Removal at 1.) In conjunction with her Notice of Removal, Defendant filed an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO Application"). (Doc. No. 4.)
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-- & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 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."). "If at before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v. 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismiss the action.")
Defendant claims removal is proper because the Court has diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Not. of Removal at 3.) Upon review of the and the Notice of Removal, however, the Court finds no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. Defendant does not explain how a case, filed by Plaintiff as where damages are no more than $10,000, could be valued at $75,000 to meet statutory requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that the case is properly in federal court. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action
Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino. As the Court is jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ...