UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 26, 2012
EMERYFED INC ET AL
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Manuel L. Real, Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
William Horrell None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
This is the second time defendant has improperly removed the same unlawful detainer action, which this Court previously remanded sua sponte back to state court for the same reasons it now sua sponte remands it again, as stated in the previous order in CV-12-2828-R, and repeated again below: A district court must remand a case to state court "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a federal question does not present itself. See Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. CV 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). As such, this case is now REMANDED TO STATE COURT.
Defendant is now hereby advised that if she removes this unlawful detainer action a third time, after being told by Court Order twice that she cannot, monetary sanctions may be imposed against her.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc: counsel of record
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk ___WH____ CIVIL -- GEN
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.