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.

Premium Investment, Inc., et al. v. Solis

November 7, 2012

PREMIUM INVESTMENT, INC., ET AL.
v.
SOLIS, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Andrea Keifer Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING REMOVAL AND REMANDING CASE

TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JS-6

The question presented is whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court finds that it does not. Consequently, it is ordered that this matter shall be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

On February 22, 2012, Premium Investment, Inc. and Allwinners Investment, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against Defendants Nicolas Solis and Martina Solis ("Defendants"), seeking possession of real property located in El Monte, California (the "Property"). Compl., Notice of Removal, Exh., Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs allege that they acquired the Property at a trustee's sale following a foreclosure on June 4, 2012. Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Id. at p.1. On August 27, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court. See Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1.

As a court of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), this Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Consequently, on October 5, 2012, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction, directing that, by October 22, 2012, each side submit a memorandum with respect to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Dkt. 6. Neither party responded. The party seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

In connection with their removal of this action, Defendants did not invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is consistent with the allegations of the complaint, in that it states that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. Defendants have not presented any information that conflicts with this assertion by Plaintiff.

Federal question jurisdiction exists where a civil action arises "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For a case to 'arise under' federal law, a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must establish either (1) that federal law creates the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff's asserted right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Federal jurisdiction ...


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.