From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Borland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 16, 2012
CASE NO. SACV 12-1282-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. SACV 12-1282-UA (DUTYx)

08-16-2012

HSBC BANK USA, NA, etc., Plaintiff, v. LORI M. BORLAND, 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 March 28, 2012, Defendant Lori M. Borland, 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 Defendant does 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.

Nor does Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Harbor Justice Center, Laguna Hills Facility, 23141 Moulton Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1206, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

AUDREY B. COLLINS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Borland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 16, 2012
CASE NO. SACV 12-1282-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2012)
Case details for

HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Borland

Case Details

Full title:HSBC BANK USA, NA, etc., Plaintiff, v. LORI M. BORLAND, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 16, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. SACV 12-1282-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2012)

Citing Cases

McGuff v. State

In the development of the rule of exclusion a parallel line of decisions dealing with cases of illegal…