UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 27, 2013
METLIFE HOME LOANS, A DIVISION OF METLIFE BANK, N.A.
MONIQUE LAUREN QUINONES, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
Joseph M. Levario n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: n/a n/a Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL [Docket No. 1]
The matter before the Court is Pro se Defendant Monica Lauren Quinones' Second Notice of Removal. [Docket No. 1] The Court has once before remanded the underlying action to state court. (Case No. 12-1047 CBM (SPx), Docket Nos. 12, 13.) On its own motion, the Court will now review Defendant's Second Notice of Removal.
Plaintiff Metlife Home Loans filed the underlying action in San Bernardino County Superior Court for "Unlawful Detainer Following Foreclosure Sale CCP Section 1161a(b)(3)." Defendant removed to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and "civil rights" jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. (Case No. 12-1047 CBM (SPx), Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Motion For Remand to San Bernardino County Superior Court. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Remand on December 13, 2012, finding no federal question jurisdiction, and remanded the action to San Bernardino County Superior Court/Rancho Cucamonga/West Valley Judicial District. (Case No. 12-1047 CBM (SPx), Docket Nos. 12, 13.) Defendant filed this Second Notice of Removal on January 29, 2013.
As the Court previously explained, removal is only proper in a case where the district court would have had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Federal question jurisdiction does not exist here because the sole cause of action, unlawful detainer, arises under California state law. See, e.g, Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). There are no allegations to support diversity and federal law does not permit removal "if any of the . . . defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Nor has Defendant alleged any facts to support civil rights removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1443; Hill v. Com. of Pa., 439 F.2d 1016, 1019 (3d Cir. 1971).
JS-6 Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS this action to San Bernardino County Superior The Court admonishes Defendant that further unwarranted removals of the underlying action to federal court may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.