UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 7, 2013
TITLE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
RENE ZEPEDA, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable 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] ORDER REMANDING CASE
Pro se Defendant Ana Boddeker filed her first notice of removal of this action on November 8, 2012. (Bank of America, NA, v. Zepeda, et al., SACV 12-1957, Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) On January 4, 2013, the case was remanded to state court. (Bank of America, NA, v. Zepeda, et al., SACV 12-1957, Order of Remand, Dkt. No. 4.)
On January 29, 2013, Defendant Ana Boddeker filed a second notice of removal with this Court. (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) On February 1, 2013, the Court found that removal appeared to be improper because Defendants had not alleged when each served defendant was served. (Order to Show Cause Re Remand to State Court, Dkt. No. 4, at 1.) The Court ordered Defendants "to show cause in writing by February 15, 2013, why this action should not be remanded." (Id.)
On February 15, 2013, Defendant Ana Boddeker filed an amended notice of removal. (Amended Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 5.) The amended notice of removal alleges that Defendant Ana Boddeker, the last defendant to be served, was served on October 19, 2012. (Id. ¶ 2.) The Court finds that the second notice of removal and the amended notice of removal are thus untimely and REMANDS the case back to the appropriate state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ("The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief . . . .")
Plaintiff also requests that the Court award Plaintiff attorney fees and costs in connection with this removal. (Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 6, at 5.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs but cautions Defendants against using dilatory tactics.
The Court REMANDS this case to the appropriate state court.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.