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.

Hsbc Bank v. Altonia Lee and Does 1 Through 5

May 31, 2012

HSBC BANK
v.
ALTONIA LEE AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Margaret M. Morrow

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW

ANEL HUERTA N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: Order Remanding Action to Los Angeles Superior Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff HSBC Bank is a corporation that claims ownership of the real property located at 17007 California Avenue, Bellflower, CA 90706 ("the property").*fn1 HSBC Bank operates as the trustee for the registered holder of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.*fn2 HSBC filed this unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles Superior Court against defendants Altonia Lee and Does 1 through 5 on November 21, 2011.*fn3 Lee is allegedly the former resident of the property.*fn4 On October 3, 2011, HSBC allegedly became the owner of the premises after purchasing the property at a trustee's sale held in compliance with California Civil Code § 2924. The title of the premises pursuant to the foreclosure sale has allegedly been duly perfected in the plaintiff's name.*fn5 HSBC alleges that the defendants have occupied the premises since the foreclosure sale without its consent.*fn6

On November 4, 2011, HSBC allegedly served written notice to the defendants to quit and deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiff within 3 days of service if they are a former owner of the premises or within 90 days if they are tenants. Where applicable, HSBC served written notice to renters pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1161c.*fn7 According to the complaint, though more than three days have elapsed since the service of the Notice to Quit, Lee and the unnamed defendants continue to be in possession of the property without HSBC's permission or consent.*fn8 HSBC has filed a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, seeking possession of the property as well as damages in the amount of $60 per day (the alleged reasonable daily rental value) for each day from November 8, 2011 until Lee relinquishes the property and the costs in pursuing this action.*fn9

Lee filed a notice of removal on May 4, 2012 attempting to invoke the court's jurisdiction based on federal question, diversity of citizenship, and civil rights violations.*fn10

II. DISCUSSION

Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court's duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties' arguments," citing Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); see also Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court sua sponte); Thiara v. Kiernan, No. C06-03503 MJJ, 2006 WL 3065568, *2 ...


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.