FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND BE GRANTED ECF NO. 4 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
STANELEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff SRD Investments Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to remand this action back to state court. (ECF No. 4.) The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiff's motion to be submitted upon the record and briefs on file without need for oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing on this matter is vacated. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion to remand be granted.
This action was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Madera on November 19, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant Nancy Montes ("Defendant") removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this matter against Defendant for unlawful detainer after non-judicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff alleged that it acquired title to the real property at 1119 Lemon Tree Drive, Madera, California 93637 via non-judicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant is in possession of the real property at issue without Plaintiff's authorization.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS TO REMAND
Removal of actions from state court to federal court are generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which states, in pertinent part:
(a) Generally.___Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
Motions to remand are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which states, in pertinent part:
If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.
Removal statutes must be construed narrowly in favor of remand to protect the jurisdiction of state courts. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co. , 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc. , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. ...