-GGH (TEMP)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Franco, No. 2:2011cv00240 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/1/11, RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of CA. Within 14 days after being served with these f&r's, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. Matter referred to Judge Burrell. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
-GGH (TEMP)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Franco Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-11-240 GEB GGH (TEMP) PS LUIS FRANCO, 14 15 16 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are 17 strictly construed against removal. See Geographic Expeditions Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 18 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th 19 Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 20 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of 21 establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life 22 and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New 23 York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter 24 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 25 26 In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal question jurisdiction. However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition establish the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court 2 action is titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal 3 jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm 4 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997). 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 9 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 12 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 13 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 14 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: February 1, 2011 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 JMM franco.remud 19 20 21 22 23 24 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.