Selene RMFO REO Acquisition Selene RMFO REO Acquisition, LLC v. Gill (C.D. Cal., 2013)

Copy Citation

Selene RMFO REO Acquisition, LLC. v. Desiree A. Gill, et al.

Case No. CV 13-1-JFW (SHx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date: January 4, 2013

PRESENT:         HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:         None

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:         None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

        On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff Selene RMFO REO Acquisition, LLC. ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Desiree A. Gill and Ed Duray ("Defendants") in Los Angeles Superior Court. On January 2, 2013, Edmound Daire ("Daire") filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction.

        Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). "Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. " Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F. 3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Daire bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e. g Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

        Daire fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Daire alleges in his Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, "an unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of

Page 2

jurisdiction. " Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. A.K. A.K. J.J. Marsh. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff's action.

        For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

--------

         Daire also mentions diversity jurisdiction in his Notice of Removal, but does not allege the citizenship of Plaintiff, the citizenship of any of the defendants, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Accordingly, Daire has failed to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction exists.

--------

--------

         Daire also mentions diversity jurisdiction in his Notice of Removal, but does not allege the citizenship of Plaintiff, the citizenship of any of the defendants, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Accordingly, Daire has failed to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction exists.

--------