-JLT Federal National Mortgage Association v. Diaz et al, No. 1:2011cv01093 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Remand The Matter To The Kern County Superior Court And To Dismiss The Matter (Doc. 14 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/12/2011. CASE CLOSED. REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court.(Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JLT Federal National Mortgage Association v. Diaz et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MANUEL DIAZ, CARLA E. PATTON, and ) DOES 1 to 10 INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________ ) Case No.: 1:11-cv-001093 LJO JLT ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND TO DISMISS THE MATTER (Doc. 14) Manuel Diaz (“Diaz”) removed an unlawful detainer action filed in Kern County Superior 19 Court by the plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Federal 20 National Mortgage Association (“Plaintiff”) seeks to remand the action to Kern County Superior 21 Court. (Doc. 11). On August 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion to 22 remand the matter to Kern County Superior Court be granted. (Doc. 14). The Magistrate Judge 23 found the notice of removal was procedurally defective because it violated the “rule of unanimity.” 24 Further, the Magistrate Judge determined Diaz failed to establish any basis for federal court 25 jurisdiction. 26 To remove a case to federal court in cases involving multiple defendants, such as the current 27 matter, the “rule of unanimity” requires that all defendants must join in a removal petition. 28 Wisconsin Dept of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 393 (1998), citing Chicago, Rock Island, & 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248 (1900). The Magistrate Judge found Diaz failed to 2 indicate his co-defendant joins or consents to the removal. 3 As the party seeking removal to the federal Court, Diaz “bears the burden of actually proving 4 the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life 5 Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 The Magistrate Judge found that the underlying complaint in the unlawful detainer action establishes 7 the Court lacks jurisdiction, because an unlawful detainer action arises under state law. See 8 Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. Solih Jora, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105453, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 9 2010). Further, to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or 10 value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the state court 11 docket, and found it indicates the amount sought by Plaintiff in the action was less than $10,000. 12 (Doc. 18 at 4). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge concluded the Court lacks subject matter and 13 diversity jurisdiction. Id. The Magistrate Judge noted Diaz was proceeding pro se and did not have the benefit of 14 15 counsel. (Doc. 14 at 5). Further, the Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to 16 support its contentions in the motion to remand, and that the Court was unable to conclude Diaz 17 acted in bad faith. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees 18 and sanctions be denied. Id. at 6. 19 Although the parties were granted twenty-one days from September 19, 2011, or until 20 October 11, 2011, to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, no 21 objections were filed by Plaintiff or Diaz. Notably, the parties were advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Court’s order. (Doc. 14 at 7). 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 24 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 25 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and 26 recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 The Findings and Recommendations filed September 19, 2011, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The matter is REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action because this order terminates 6 the action in its entirety. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d October 12, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
