Opinion
CASE NO. CV 11-09020 UA (RZ)
11-10-2011
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADELLE WHITE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION
The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.
On October 28, 2011, Defendants Adelle White, having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a Notice Of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.
Simply stated, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the first place, in that Defendants do not competently allege facts supplying either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). Even if complete diversity of citizenship exists, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the contrary, the unlawful-detainer complaint recites that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, because Defendant resides in the forum state, Defendant cannot properly remove the action, to the extent diversity jurisdiction is asserted. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
Nor does Plaintiff s unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
AUDREY B. COLLINS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE