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 Alan Radnitz et al. v. Laurie D. Siqueido et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 4, 2012

TITLE ALAN RADNITZ ET AL.
v.
LAURIE D. SIQUEIDO ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, U.S. District Judge

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present) Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO

SUPERIOR COURT

On August 13, 2012, Defendant Laurie D. Siqueido, in pro se, removed this action from the Los Angeles County Superior Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 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."). Additionally, the Notice of Removal of a civil action must be filed within 30 days after service of process upon defendant of a pleading stating a removable claim. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b)(1).

Defendant states that the basis for removal is that the claim arises under federal law. Defendant fails to point out what federal laws or portions of the Constitution have purportedly been violated. The Court's careful review of the Complaint filed by Alan Radnitz and Rena Radnitz ("Plaintiffs") on June 27, 2012, shows that Plaintiff raised no federal question therein. Plaintiff's Complaint is a discrete action for unlawful detainer, an action which exclusively invokes authority pursuant to California statute. The Complaint does not set forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States for which the Court would have "original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to her Notice of Removal or by asserting a defense under federal law. Further, removal is prohibited by untimeliness as Defendant filed Notice of Removal more than 30 days after she was served.

Accordingly, Defendant's removal is improper for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

20121004

© 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.