(PS) Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC v. Eugene, et al., No. 2:2014cv02642 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/14/14 RECOMMENDING that this action be remanded to the County of Yuba Superior Court. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIERRA ASSET SERVICING, LLC, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2642 MCE CKD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ANDRE EUGENE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 18 construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 19 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 20 first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 21 bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 22 (9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 23 be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 24 In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal 25 question jurisdiction. Defendants claim they have a defense under a federal statute. Removal 26 based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question is presented on the 27 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 28 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition establish the state court action is 1 1 nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court action is titled as such. 2 Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter 3 should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 4 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 Yuba. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 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 advised 13 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 14 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Dated: November 14, 2014 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 sierra-eugene2642.remud 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
