Filed: May 18, 2016
Latest Update: May 18, 2016
Summary: SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant James Kevin Young ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on May 17, 2016, removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. (Notice of Removal (NOR), ECF No. 1.) This case is remanded sua sponte to the court from which it was removed for lack of removal subject matter jurisdiction. "There is a `strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,' and the remo
Summary: SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant James Kevin Young ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on May 17, 2016, removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. (Notice of Removal (NOR), ECF No. 1.) This case is remanded sua sponte to the court from which it was removed for lack of removal subject matter jurisdiction. "There is a `strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,' and the remov..
More
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Defendant James Kevin Young ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on May 17, 2016, removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. (Notice of Removal (NOR), ECF No. 1.) This case is remanded sua sponte to the court from which it was removed for lack of removal 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)).
Review of the NOR documents evinces that the sole claim in Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant is an unlawful detainer claim alleged under California law. Hence, even if Defendant's NOR could be construed as an asserted counterclaim alleged under federal law, "federal [removal] jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).
Since Defendant has not shown the existence of removal subject matter jurisdiction, this case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin.
