Bank of New York Mellon v. Brown

Full title: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. JOHN H. BROWN III, ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Case No. SACV 11-01340 AG (OPx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. SACV 11-01340 AG (OPx)

09-01-2011

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. JOHN H. BROWN III, ET AL.

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD

+-----------------------------------------------+ ¦Lisa Bredahl¦Not Present ¦ ¦ +------------+-------------------------+--------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk¦Court Reporter / Recorder¦Tape No.¦ +-----------------------------------------------+

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] NOTICE OF IMPROPER REMOVAL

Plaintiff filed this case in state court for unlawful detainer. Defendants then filed a Notice of Removal, which removed this case from state to federal court. Although Defendants claim that diversity of citizenship exists among the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Notice of Removal fails to state the citizenship of the parties.

In unlawful detainer actions, "[s]peedy adjudication is desirable to prevent subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss and the tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental agreement gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property." Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 (1972). Defendants are cautioned not to improperly seek federal jurisdiction, particularly for delay.

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), this Court carefully reviews attempts to remove. Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and suits filed in state court may be removed only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A defendant can remove a state court action to federal court on the basis of diversity if there is complete diversity between the parties and no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. 1441(b); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806); see also Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 90 n.6 (2005).

Here diversity has not been established, and the Court must REMAND this action to state court.

__ :0

Initials of Preparer