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.

Fannie Mae Etc v. Mary L. Roberson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 4, 2013

FANNIE MAE ETC
v.
MARY L. ROBERSON

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Manuel L. Real, Judge

MAKE JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

William Horrell None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None

PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

A district court must remand a case to state court "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a federal question does not present itself. See Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. CV 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). As such, this case is now REMANDED TO STATE COURT. This case was also improperly removed on its face, as the person listed as the removing party in propria persona as Harold Roberson, is not a named defendant in the underlying state action. However, if the removing party had been Mary L. Roberson, the matter would still be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as explained above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: counsel of record

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk ___WH____ CIVIL -- GEN

20130204

© 1992-2013 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.