THM Enterprise LLC v. Angela Boyd et al
Filing
5
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips REMANDING ACTION TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Terminated: (see document image for further details). Defendant has not met his burden of establishing that the case is properly in federal court. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County. IT IS SO ORDERED. Made JS-6 (ad)
<![CDATA[
PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-01424-VAP (DTBx)
Date: August 20, 2013
Title:
THM ENTERPRISE, LLC -v- ANGELA BOYD DBA UNIQUELY
ELEGANT ATTIRE ANGELA BOYD, AN INDIVIDUAL
===============================================================
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 CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (IN
CHAMBERS)
On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff THM Enterprise, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer (Ex. 1 to Not. of Removal ("Complaint")) against Defendant
Angela Boyd dba Uniquely Elegant Attire Angela Boyd ("Defendant"). On August
13, 2013, Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
(See Not. of Removal at 1.)
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441, et seq.
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
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 1
EDCV 13-01424-VAP (DTBx)
THM ENTERPRISE, LLC v. ANGELA BOYD DBA UNIQUELY ELEGANT ATTIRE ANGELA BOYD, AN INDIVIDUAL
MINUTE ORDER of August 20, 2013
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 claims the basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims arise under federal law. From the face of the
Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state
law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)
(defendant may not remove case to federal court unless the basis for federal
jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Accordingly, Defendant has
not shown the Court's jurisdiction based on federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendant has not met his burden of establishing that the case is properly in
federal court. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the 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 2
]]>
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?
