Quantum Servicing Corp v. Marvin R. Cook et al
Filing
14
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge John F. Walter remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 11C02930. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (kbr)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-3072-JFW (SHx)
Title:
Quantum Servicing Corp.-v- Marvin R. Cook, et al.
Date: May 9, 2012
PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT
On September 14, 2011, Plaintiff Quantum Servicing Corporation as Agent for Waterfall
Victoria REO LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Martin R.
Cook, Adriana I. Juarez and Catalina Rodriguez ("Defendants”) in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On May 1, 2012, Defendants filed a Petition 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, Defendants bear 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).
Defendants fail to meet their burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendants allege in their
Petition of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not
raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of
(Rev. 1-26-12)
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 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). If Defendants continue to improperly remove this action, the
Court will enter an award of attorney fees against the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(Rev. 1-26-12)
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
]]>
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?
