Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title: Ameriprise Bank, Fsb v. Rita P. Dinsmore Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 24, 2012

TITLE: AMERIPRISE BANK, FSB
v.
RITA P. DINSMORE THOMAS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

PRESENT: HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dwayne Roberts N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

On February 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action for unlawful detainer against Defendant in California state court. On October 8, 2010, Defendant removed this action to federal court, and on November 8, 2010 the district court remanded the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ameriprise Bank, FSB v. Dinsmore Thomas, No. SACV 10-01520-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010). Defendant again attempted to remove the action to federal court on April 26, 2012, but, on May 3, 2012, Chief Judge of the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins summarily remanded the case on the grounds that the matter did not satisfy the amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction and that it failed to raise any federal legal question. Defendant's third attempt remove this action is again unavailing. Defendant has asserted no new basis for establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and her previous allegations of entitlement to removal remain conclusory and without support. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, again REMANDS the case to state court.

Further, the Court hereby advises Defendant that her litigious conduct in filing successive, frivolous removal notices, is causing an undue burden on the Court and imposing needless costs on Plaintiff. The Court now must insist on strict compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and any violation of this rule will result in appropriate sanctions.

20120524

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.