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.

Title the Bank of New York Mellon v. Diana Moussaoui

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 25, 2013

TITLE THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
v.
DIANA MOUSSAOUI, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On August 19, 2012, Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM") filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer against Defendant Diana Moussaoui. [Doc. # 1, Ex. A]. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on March 12, 2013, arguing that the unlawful detainer action was carried out in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5220, and thus that this Court has federal question jurisdiction. [Doc. #1]. The Complaint, however, raises no federal question.*fn1 Federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Additionally, it appears that removal was untimely because Defendant waited more than 30 days to file the Notice of Removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

"The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Defendant has not established a basis for removal jurisdiction on the face of the Notice of Removal, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.