IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 6, 2013
ROGER D. ENNES, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND KAREN ENNES, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS,
US BANK NA, DOING BUSINESS AS "US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE BY RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC FORMALLY KNOWN AS RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION ATTORNEY IN FACT," A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN; AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., A CORPORATION; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR RASC 2005-EMX5,
ROGER D ENNES, KAREN ENNES, AND DOES 1 THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
ORDER RELATING CASES AND REMANDING REASSIGNED CASE
On February 8, 2013, Roger Ennes and Karen Ennes (the "Enneses") filed a motion to relate and consolidate the above-captioned cases, in which they state, inter alia:
The [above-captioned cases] both involve substantially the same parties and are based on similar claims. PLAINTIFFS in [Case No. 2:13-cv-00082] are also named Defendants in the State Case that was removed into [Case No. 2:13-cv-00086]. US BANK is a named Defendant in [Case No. 2:13-cv-00082], as well as Plaintiff in [Case No. 2:13-cv-00086] . . . . In addition[,] the claims in the[se two cases] are substantially similar and involve the same property, as they all arise from claims of rightful possession of, and title to, the [real property commonly known as 10399 Capewood Lane, Stockton, California 95212].
Furthermore, an order from this Court that the [above-captioned cases] are related pursuant to L.R. 123(a) is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and avoid an unnecessary duplication of labor. (Pls.' Mot. 5:5-19, ECF No. 10 in Case No. 2:13-cv-00082.)
Examination of the above-captioned cases reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first-filed action was assigned. Therefore, Case No. 2:13-cv-00086 is reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds; any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.
Further, review of the reassigned case (Case No. 2:13-cv-00086)
indicates that it should be remanded sua sponte. The reassigned case
is an unlawful detainer action removed by the Enneses from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. (Notice of
("NOR") 2:1-5:3, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 2:13-cv-00086.)*fn1
No federal claims are alleged in the Complaint; the Enneses
predicate removal solely on diversity jurisdiction. (Id.)
"There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and the removing party has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App'x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "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). "The court may - indeed must - remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction." GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The Enneses state in their Notice of Removal that they "are citizens of the State of California." (NOR 3:26.) "[A]s citizens of the forum state, [the Enneses] cannot remove the action. The removal statute unambiguously precludes removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity where, as here, any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action was brought." Louden, LLC v. Martin, No. C 12-5972 SBA, 2012 WL 6020059, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)).
For the stated reasons, Case No. 2:12-cv-00086 is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, from which it was removed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.