The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: Honorable VIRGINIA A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
Marva Dillard None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION
TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)
On August 3, 2012, Defendant Carlos E. Anaya first removed this action from the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. (See Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1), Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Anaya, No. 12-01292VAP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012).) This Court remanded the case and terminated it in this Court on August 27, 2012, on the following grounds:
Defendant alleges the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1441, because Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association's state unlawful detainer claim is in violation of Defendant's federal statutory and constitutional rights. Defendant's argument lacks merit; for the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
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. 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, 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. Dallas, 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 argues that Congress intended to preempt state law unlawful detainer claims when it enacted the Emergency Economic Stablization Act; as such, Plaintiff has no California ...