-DAD (PS)(TEMP) Federal National Mortgage Assocation v. Stone, No. 2:2011cv00334 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/11: Recommending that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Tehama. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
-DAD (PS)(TEMP) Federal National Mortgage Assocation v. Stone Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, 11 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-334 GEB DAD (TEMP) PS 12 vs. 13 BONNIE STONE, 14 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are 18 strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 19 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 20 removal 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, defendant’s removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal question jurisdiction. However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the 2 state court action is titled as such. The state court action has also proceeded to final judgment. 3 Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should 4 therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 5 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, it is important to note that this court does not 6 sit as an appellate court over state court judgments. 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Tehama. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 15 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: March 8, 2011. 18 19 20 21 JMM fnma-stone.remud 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.