From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roem Builders Inc. v. Parker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 28, 2017
No. 2:17-cv-00632-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-00632-GEB-CKD

03-28-2017

ROEM BUILDERS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. KUMBA PARKER, Defendant.


SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this case. --------

On March 27, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. (Notice of Removal ("NOR"), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

"There is a 'strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,' and the removing party has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App'x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The court may - indeed must - remand [a case] sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction." GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendant asserts in the NOR that federal question removal jurisdiction exists based on his "Answer to the complaint" in which he defends against the unlawful detainer complaint by asserting that Plaintiff "failed to comply with The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act [12 U.S.C. § 5220]." (NOR ¶¶ at 8 and 10.)

However, Defendant has not shown "that Federal jurisdiction can[] be predicated on [his] an actual or anticipated defense" to the pled unlawful detainer lawsuit. Vaden v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Therefore this case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. Dated: March 28, 2017

/s/_________

GARIAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Roem Builders Inc. v. Parker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 28, 2017
No. 2:17-cv-00632-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Roem Builders Inc. v. Parker

Case Details

Full title:ROEM BUILDERS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. KUMBA PARKER, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 28, 2017

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-00632-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)