Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02094/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2094 GEB KJM PS

vs.

ANASTACIO LIRA,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are

strictly construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064

(9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of

establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v. Provident Life

and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New

York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to

various federal statutes but does not allege a proper basis for removal. It appears the state court

action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action, and the state court action is titled

Case 2:10-cv-02094-GEB -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

as such. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the

matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-76 (9th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be

summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 23, 2010.

006

usbank-lira.remud

Case 2:10-cv-02094-GEB -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2