-DAD (PS) Blue Mountain Homes LLC v. Bell et al, No. 2:2011cv02155 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/19/2011 ORDERING defendant Renee Bell's 2 motion to proceed informa pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. It is recommending that this action be summarily remanded to the Solona Superior Court and this case be closed; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PS) Blue Mountain Homes LLC v. Bell et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BLUE MOUNTAIN HOMES LLC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-2155 KJM DAD PS vs. RONNIE D. BELL, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 By Notice of Removal filed August 15, 2011, this unlawful detainer action was 17 removed from Solano County Superior Court by defendant Renee L.H. Bell, who is proceeding 18 pro se.1 Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes 19 encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 Defendant Renee L.H. Bell has filed an incomplete motion to proceed in forma 21 pauperis. In the absence of complete information about defendant’s income, defendant has failed 22 to make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The motion will be denied without prejudice 23 on that ground. 24 ///// 25 26 1 Named defendant Ronnie D. Bell has not joined in the removal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be 2 “strictly construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 3 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). 4 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 5 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing 6 federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident 7 Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 8 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Moreover, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the 9 plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. 10 Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 Where it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the 12 case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 13 In conclusory fashion, defendant Renee Bell alleges as follows in her notice of 14 removal: plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in Solano County Superior Court; defendant 15 Renee Bell filed a demurrer alleging that plaintiff’s notice to vacate premises did not comply 16 with The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220; the state court did not sustain 17 defendant Renee Bell’s demurrer. (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at 1-2.) Defendant argues 18 that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ demurrer, a pleading, depend 19 [sic] on the determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 20 3.) 21 Defendant’s notice of removal includes a copy of plaintiff’s complaint (Id., Ex. 22 A.) It is evident from plaintiff’s complaint that this action is nothing more than a garden-variety 23 unlawful detainer action filed against the former owner of real property located in California and 24 based wholly on California law. Plaintiff’s complaint does not involve any “claim or right 25 arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” that would have permitted 26 plaintiff to file this action originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant’s own 2 1 argument demonstrates that if there is any federal claim in this action it arises solely from the 2 affirmative defense alleged by defendant Renee Bell and not from the claims alleged in plaintiff’s 3 unlawful detainer complaint. 4 5 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that defendant Renee L.H. Bell has failed to meet the burden of establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction. 6 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Renee Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and 8 9 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Solano and this case be closed. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 11 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 12 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 13 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document presenting 14 objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 15 Any reply to objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. 16 DATED: August 19, 2011. 17 18 19 20 DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.pro se\bluemtn-bell2155.f&r.remand.ud 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.
