Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GRANITE RANCH OPPORTUNITIES LLC v. MORGAN-LEWIS, 14-cv-00476-JST. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140403818 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION Re: ECF No. 6 JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. In this removed action for unlawful detainer, Magistrate Judge Grewal issued a report and recommendation prior to the reassignment of the action to this Court. ECF No. 6. Judge Grewal found that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, federal-question jurisdiction does not exist because Granite Ranch brings a single unlawful detainer claim, which is predicated on state law. Sec
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION Re: ECF No. 6

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

In this removed action for unlawful detainer, Magistrate Judge Grewal issued a report and recommendation prior to the reassignment of the action to this Court. ECF No. 6. Judge Grewal found that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, federal-question jurisdiction does not exist because Granite Ranch brings a single unlawful detainer claim, which is predicated on state law. Second, diversity of citizenship is absent because both parties are citizens of California.1

The period for filing objections to this report and recommendation has ended, and no party has filed objections. Because the report and recommendation is thorough and well-reasoned, the Court adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the clerk of the Superior Court and terminate this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Removal was based on diversity of citizenship. ECF No. 1. Though Judge Grewal's report and recommendation does not address this issue, Morgan Lewis' California citizenship is a sufficient ground for remanding the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (providing that a citizen of the state in which the action is brought cannot remove the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer