(PS) Reclamation District 1001 v. Stokes, No. 2:2010cv02374 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/9/2010 RECOMMENDING that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sutter. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
(PS) Reclamation District 1001 v. Stokes Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RECLAMATION DISTRICT 1001, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-10-2374 MCE KJM PS vs. WILLIAM STOKES, Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are 17 strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 18 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 19 removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of 20 establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life 21 and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New 22 York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986)). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 24 In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to 25 federal question jurisdiction. However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition establish the 26 state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 action is titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal 2 jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm 3 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-76 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sutter. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: September 9, 2010. 15 16 006 reclamdist.remud 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2