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.

Golden Imperial Investment, Inc. v. Stephen J. Ferri

February 12, 2013

GOLDEN IMPERIAL INVESTMENT, INC.
v.
STEPHEN J. FERRI, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Margaret M. Morrow

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW

ANEL HUERTA

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: Order Remanding Action to Los Angeles Superior Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Golden Imperial Investment, Inc. commenced this action in state court on July 10, 2012 against defendants Stephen J. Ferri, Christine M. Ferri, and certain fictitious defendants.*fn1 On December 31, 2012, Stephen Ferri removed the action to this court.*fn2

Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to possession of real property located at 1430 Wellington Ave., Pasadena, California 91103.*fn3 On June 25, 2012, the property was sold at a trustee's sale. The complaint asserts that "[p]laintiff was not the foreclosing beneficiary and perfected the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale."*fn4 After plaintiff acquired title to the property, it served defendants with a 3/90 day notice *fn5 The time to deliver possession of the property to plaintiff under the notice has expired, but defendants have failed to quit the premises or deliver possession of the property.*fn6

Plaintiff seeks immediate restitution and possession of the subject property, holdover damages in the amount of $75.00 per day from July 6, 2012 to the date of judgment, costs of suit, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.*fn7 Defendant asserts that he filed an answer to the complaint in state court;*fn8 the answer is not attached to the notice of removal, however.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard Regarding Removal Jurisdiction

Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court's duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties' arguments," citing Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); see also Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court sua sponte); Thiara v. Kiernan, No. C06-03503 MJJ, 2006 WL 3065568, *2 ...


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.