Claudette Zelkha et al v. Lorna Long-Travers et al
Filing
9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: re: MOTION to Remand Case to Riverside 6 . ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Moreno Valley Superior Court, Case number MVC1201096 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (shb)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV 12-00653-RGK (OPx)
Title
CLAUDETTE ZELKHA et al v. LORNA LONG-TRAVERS
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 7, 2012
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 April 30, 2012, Defendant Lorna Long-Travers, representing herself pro se, removed this
action from the Riverside County Superior Court of California to the United States District Court,
Central District of California on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
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.”).
Defendant states that the basis for removal is that the claims arise under federal law. Defendant
fails to point out what federal laws or portions of the Constitution have purportedly been violated. The
Court’s careful review of the Complaint filed by Claudette Zelkha and Tumany Tumer on February 29,
2012, shows that Plaintiffs raised no federal question therein. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a discrete action
for unlawful detainer, an action which exclusively invokes authority pursuant to California statute. The
Complaint does not set forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the
United States for which the Court would have “original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant
cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to her Notice of
Removal. Accordingly, Defendant’s removal is improper for lack of federal question jurisdiction.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior
Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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?
