The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Tony Sickler and German Rojas ("Plaintiffs") seek removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). For the following reasons, the action is REMANDED to Kern County Superior Court.
1. Factual and Procedural History
On August 24, 2012, Plaintiffs purported to commence an action against Artes Bella Group; Countrywide Corporation; Financial Green Tree Servicing, LLC; Quality Loan Services Corps.; Jose Luis Prado; and Recontrust Co., N.A., in Case No. 12-cv-01393-LJO-JLT.*fn1 On September 20, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal of an unlawful detainer action, which contained a document from 2 the Kern County Superior Court indicating Artes Bellas Group had filed an action against Tony 3 Sickler and Karla Sanchez in Case No. S-1500-CL-270166. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to 4 remand the unlawful detainer action on September 24, 2012. 5
On October 15, 2012, Plaintiffs once again commenced the action now before the Court, by 6 removing Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CL-270166, to this Court. (Doc. 1 at 1). 7
Once again, the Court orders this matter remanded to the Kern County Superior Court. 8
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). Specifically, Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Id. at § 1331.
A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b).Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 ("the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute").If there is any doubt as to the right of removal, "federal jurisdiction must be rejected." Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.
The district court has "a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not."United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass'n v. 2 Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural 3 and jurisdictional defects and holding that a "district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction"). 4
Consequently, the Sixth Circuit explained that a court "can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it 5 determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion." Page 6 v. ...