Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Con Am Management Corporation v. Ramirez

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 12, 2014

CON AM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
ARMANDO RAMIREZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND TERMINATING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Armando Ramirez seeks removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). This is the second time, in a matter of days, that Ramirez has removed this matter to this Court. Con Am Management Corp. v. Armando Ramirez, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00843. The Court summarily remanded that matter on June 6, 2014 because it lacks jurisdiction to proceed. Now, Ramirez has removed the matter again and has added a couple of pages of irrelevant citation to authority. Seemingly, Ramirez does not grasp-despite the Court's explicit explanation in its order remanding the prior matter-that no matter what he claims, this Court's jurisdiction can be founded only upon what has been pleaded by the Plaintiff.[1]

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint, the action is REMANDED to Kern County Superior Court.

1. Factual and Procedural History

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiff Con Am Management Corporation filed a complaint against Armando Ramirez and Socorro Reina Maduena for unlawful detainer in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. D-1503-CL-14015.[2] The defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. ( See Doc. 1 at 2.) Therefore, Plaintiff requested the entry of default on February 11, 2014. ( See Doc. 1 at 7-8.) The Clerk of Court granted default judgment, and a writ of possession for the property was issued. ( See Doc. 1 at 5.)

On June 11, 2014, Armando Ramirez ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, thereby attempting to initiate the action in this Court. (Docs. 1-2.) As noted above, this court summarily remanded the prior matter to the Kern County Superior Court because it lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Con Am Management Corp. v. Armando Ramirez, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00843, Doc. 5.

II. Removal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). Specifically,

Except 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 defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Id. at § 1331.

A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 ("the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute"). If there is any doubt as to the right of removal, "federal jurisdiction must be rejected." Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.

The district court has "a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not." United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural and jurisdictional defects and holding that a "district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction"). Thus, the Sixth Circuit explained a court "can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion." Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).

III. Discussion and Analysis

A. The Court lacks jurisdiction over ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.