DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. GLASS, C-14-00773-RMW. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20140403851
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 4] RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. On December 31, 2013, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint alleging an unlawful detainer cause of action against defendant Margaret L. Glass ("Glass"). Glass subsequently removed the action to federal court on February 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 1. On February 25, 2014, the magistrate judge ordered that the case be reassigned to a district court judge. Dkt. No. 4. The magistrate al
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 4] RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. On December 31, 2013, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint alleging an unlawful detainer cause of action against defendant Margaret L. Glass ("Glass"). Glass subsequently removed the action to federal court on February 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 1. On February 25, 2014, the magistrate judge ordered that the case be reassigned to a district court judge. Dkt. No. 4. The magistrate als..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[Re: Docket No. 4]
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
On December 31, 2013, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint alleging an unlawful detainer cause of action against defendant Margaret L. Glass ("Glass"). Glass subsequently removed the action to federal court on February 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 1. On February 25, 2014, the magistrate judge ordered that the case be reassigned to a district court judge. Dkt. No. 4. The magistrate also issued a report and recommendation that the court remand the action to state court because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The case is now before the undersigned. The court having reviewed the magistrate judge's report and there being no objections filed, the court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because plaintiff's complaint presents claims arising only under California law, the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000, and Glass is a California defendant. The court thus remands the case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
Source: Leagle
