-EFB (PS) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awwad et al, No. 2:2011cv01942 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/21/2011 ORDERING that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on 11/30/2011, is VACATED; RECOMMENDING that this action be Remanded to Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano; Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)

Download PDF

-EFB (PS) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awwad et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3, 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1942 JAM EFB PS 13 vs. 14 SAMER AWWAD; ABIR N. AWWAD, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 / On July 25, 2011, defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this 18 unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for Solano County. 19 Dckt. No. 1. This case is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 20 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 21 This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua 22 sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of 23 establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is 24 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 25 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 26 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 explained below, defendants have failed to meet their burden. Defendants’ notice of removal is predicated upon the court’s federal question 3 jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 1 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b), 1446(a)). Defendant contends that 4 “[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” Id. However, a review of the complaint reveals 5 that plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer 6 under state law. Dckt. No. 1-1 at 15-17 (Compl.). Therefore, because defendants have not 7 adequately established that plaintiff’s complaint alleges a federal claim,1 the court lacks subject 8 matter jurisdiction and must remand the case.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on November 30, 2011, is vacated.3 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 19 1 20 2 21 22 23 Nor have defendants established that this court has diversity jurisdiction. It is also unclear whether the notice of removal was timely. Section 1446(b) requires a notice of removal to be “filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, defendants note that the complaint was filed in state court “[o]n March 11, 2011,” but do not indicate when they were served with or otherwise received a copy of the complaint. Dckt. No. 1 at 1. 24 3 25 26 As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the July 25, 2011 order. See Dckt. No. 2. However, if the recommendation of remand herein is not adopted by the district judge, the undersigned will reschedule the status conference and require the parties to submit status reports. 2 1 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th 4 Cir. 1991). 5 Dated: September 21, 2011. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.