United States District Court, C.D. California
December 15, 2014
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
AURA CASTILLO, an individual and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT AND PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM FILING ANY FURTHER NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 14PO4 866
JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
The Court will remand this action to state court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.
On December 9, 2014, Defendant Aura Echeverria, having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 14PO4866), filed a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant has previously removed this same unlawful detainer proceeding on a prior occasion. On the prior occasion, this Court remanded the action noting that federal jurisdiction does not exist. (See Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Aura Castillo, et al., Case No. CV 14-7297 UA (DUTYx).)
The Court has denied the in forma pauperis application under separate cover because the action, again, was not properly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court. Moreover, to prevent Defendant from further abusing the federal court to obstruct his state proceedings without any basis, the Court issues this order prohibiting him from filing any further notice of removal with respect to this unlawful detainer action.
Simply stated, as the Court has previously determined, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the first place, in that Defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). Even if complete diversity of citizenship existed, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold of $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the contrary, the unlawful-detainer complaint recites that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10, 000.
Nor does Plaintiffs unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California, Pasadena Superior Court, 300 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Aura Echeverria is prohibited from filing any further Notice of Removals of this case from state court without an Order of the Court or of the Chief Judge of the Central District of California allowing him to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.