-CKD (PS) Federal National Mortgage Association v. Liebmann, No. 2:2011cv02962 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/14/11 recommending that this Action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
-CKD (PS) Federal National Mortgage Association v. Liebmann Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-2962 MCE CKD PS vs. MARGARITA LIEBMANN, Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 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, the removal petition alleges defendant was deprived of due process and equal protection but does not allege a proper basis for removal. It appears the state 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court action is 2 titled as such. Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and 3 the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 4 Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997). 5 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. 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: November 14, 2011 16 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 4 fhlmc-liebmann2.remud 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2