-DAD (TEMP)(PS) JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Sweeney, No. 2:2011cv01524 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/14/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
-DAD (TEMP)(PS) JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Sweeney Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-1524 MCE DAD (TEMP) PS vs. HOWARD SWEENEY, 14 Defendant. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 This action was removed from state court on June 6, 2011. On June 9, 2011, 17 plaintiff filed a motion to remand and an ex parte application to have the motion heard on 18 shortened time. Upon review of the notice of removal, it is apparent this court lacks subject 19 matter jurisdiction over the action. 20 Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against removal. See Libhart 21 v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be 22 rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 23 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party 24 invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.1994) 25 (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Where it 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1447(c). 3 In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to 4 federal question jurisdiction. However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition and to 5 plaintiff’s motion to remand establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple 6 unlawful detainer action, and the state court action is titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet 7 his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be summarily 8 remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 9 375-76 (9th Cir. 1997). 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 17 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 18 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 19 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 DATED: June 14, 2011. 21 22 23 24 JMM jpmorgan-sweeney.remud 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.