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 60 Percent Skyhanna, LLC and 20 Percent Brenden Real Estate, LLC v. John Paul M. Arroyo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 15, 2013

TITLE 60 PERCENT SKYHANNA, LLC AND 20 PERCENT BRENDEN REAL ESTATE, LLC AND 20 PERCENT EJJ, LLC
v.
JOHN PAUL M. ARROYO

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 November 29, 2012, Plaintiff 60 Percent Skyhanna, LLC and 20 Percent Brenden Real Estate, LLC and 20 Percent EJJ, LLC filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer against Defendant John Paul M. Arroyo. [Doc. # 1, Ex. 1]. Defendant filed a Petition for Removal on May 10, 2013, styled as a complaint raising thirteen causes of action, including violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). [Doc. # 1.] The underlying removed complaint, however, raises no federal question and the parties are not diverse. Defendant appears to be attempting to file counterclaims in his Notice of Removal, but 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).

"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 Petition for Removal, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130515

© 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.