Bank of America NA v. Jacob Crawford et al
Filing
6
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Case number UDRS1102070. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (mrgo)
<![CDATA[
PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 11-01229 VAP (SPx)
Date: September 1, 2011
Title:
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. -v- JACOB CRAWFORD; KAY CRAWFORD;
AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None
PROCEEDINGS:
None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)
On July 28, 2011, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A., ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer ("Complaint") against Defendants Jacob Crawford and Kay
Crawford ("Defendants") in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino. (Not. of Removal at 26.) On August 3, 2011 Defendants removed the
action on the basis of this Court's jurisdiction over cases implicating civil rights, 28
U.S.C. § 1443. (See Not. of Removal at 1-2.)
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 1
EDCV 11-01229 VAP (SPx)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. JACOB CRAWFORD; KAY CRAWFORD; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of September 1, 2011
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, 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."). "If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.")
Defendant mentions that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)
because "Defendants believe that they have no protection of the law under
California Courts [sic] and that their United States Constitutionally [sic] guaranteed
rights to due process and fair hearing [sic] is at issue in this case as the State of
California have [sic] streamlined a what [sic] is called an unlawful detainer action
where the Defendants such as the present Defendants [sic] rights is [sic] abrogated
or none-existent [sic]." (Not. of Removal at 1-2.) Even construing Defendant's
Notice of Removal liberally, the Court finds Defendant fails to establish that this
Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which allows a defendant to
remove certain civil actions involving civil rights from state court to federal court.
In order to remove a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), Defendants must satisfy
a two-pronged test: (1) "it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal
petitioner arises under a federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms
of racial equality"; and (2) "it must appear . . . that the removal petitioner is denied or
cannot enforce the specified federal rights in the courts of the State." Johnson v.
Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). Defendants fail to satisfy either prong here.
Defendants fail to allege that they are members of any racial group or that they have
been denied any specific civil right, let alone that they have been denied any civil
right stated in terms of racial equality. Moreover, Defendants fail to allege that they
have been denied any civil right that they cannot enforce in California courts.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 2
EDCV 11-01229 VAP (SPx)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. JACOB CRAWFORD; KAY CRAWFORD; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of September 1, 2011
"If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhibits
annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order
for summary remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4),
the Court has examined the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has
not met his burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal court. See 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."). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the
Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 3
]]>
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?
