Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Eric G. Rodriguez et al
Filing
6
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103) (am)
<![CDATA[
PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 12-00681 VAP (OPx)
Date: May 10, 2012
Title:
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS
ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS -v- ERIC G. RODRIGUEZ,
VERONICA RODRIGUEZ, AND DOES 1 - 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 November 23, 2011, Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
("Plaintiff") filed a complaint for unlawful detainer ("Complaint") against Defendants
Eric G. Rodriguez and Veronica Rodriguez ("Defendants") in the California Superior
Court for the County of San Bernardino. (See Not. of Removal.) On May 2, 2012,
Defendant Eric G. Rodriguez ("Defendant") 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 2.)
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 1
EDCV 12-00681 VAP (OPx)
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS v. ERIC G. RODRIGUEZ, VERONICA
RODRIGUEZ, AND DOES 1 - 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of May 10, 2012
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "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, 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 "the actions of Counsel for Plaintiff, and the State Court is [sic] depriving
Defendant of due process of law in that he is being dispossessed of his property, in
noncompliance with the express language of the aforementioned referenced
statute." (Not. of Removal at 4.) 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), Defendant 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). Defendant fails to satisfy either prong here.
Defendant fails to allege that he is a member of any racial group or that he has been
denied any specific civil right, let alone that he has been denied any civil right stated
in terms of racial equality. Moreover, Defendant fails to allege that he has been
denied any civil right that he cannot enforce in California courts.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 2
EDCV 12-00681 VAP (OPx)
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS v. ERIC G. RODRIGUEZ, VERONICA
RODRIGUEZ, AND DOES 1 - 10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of May 10, 2012
"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?
