Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ana M Zeledon et al
Filing
4
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, North Central District, Burbank, Case number 11C00365 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. Certified copies of the docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to State Court (see document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (rne)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 11-08005-RGK (AGRx)
Date
September 30, 2011
Title
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. ZELEDON
Present: The
Honorable
R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT
On September 27, 2011 Defendants Ana and Johnny Zeledon (collectively “Defendants”),
representing themselves pro se, removed this action from the Los Angeles County Superior Court of
California to the United States District Court, Central District of California on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association
(“Plaintiff”) originally filed this case on August 25, 2011.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d
709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d
952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is
properly in federal court.”).
Removal is only proper within thirty days of the date of service of the first pleading which sets
forth a basis for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defendants were served with the Complaint on August
19, 2011 and did not serve the notice of removal until September 27, 2011. The removal is untimely as it
was filed more than thirty days after the service of the Complaint.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby remands the action to state court for all further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
slw
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
