UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 3, 2012
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable VIRGINIA A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
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 REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS)
On October 2, 2012, Defendant Anthony Rodriguez removed this action from the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside. Defendant alleges the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this matter "under federal questions."
Not. of Removal). For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
EDCV 12-01670 VAP (OPx)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE MINUTE ORDER of October 3, 2012
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. FedermanBachrach & 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 any time 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 obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.")
Defendant alleges the basis for removal is "federal questions." From the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Without a federal question, there is no federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court for the County of As a result of the Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the merits of Defendant's Request for Temporary Restraining Order, filed October 2, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.