Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Resol Group LLC v. Scarlett

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

December 1, 2014

RESOL GROUP LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SIDNEY T. SCARLETT et al., Defendants

Sidney T. Scarlett, Plaintiff, Pro se, San Jose, CA.

For Resoll Group llc, Defendant: Kirkman Jan Hoffman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, San Jose, CA.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Resol Group LLC (" Plaintiff"). ECF No. 9 (" Mot."). Defendant Sidney T. Scarlett (" Scarlett") has not filed an Opposition. The Court finds this motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and hereby VACATES the motion hearing set for February 19, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

I. BACKGROUND

Beginning June 20, 2005, Scarlett held title to the real property located at 6215 Drifter Drive, San Jose, CA 95123 (the " Property") in Santa Clara County. ECF No. 11-1 ¶ 5. At some time thereafter, Scarlett defaulted on his mortgage, and the Property was sold to Plaintiff at a trustee's sale on May 1, 2014. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff recorded the Trustee's Deed on May 9, 2014. Id. ¶ 7. On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff served a three-day Notice to Quit on Scarlett, informing him that the Property had been sold at foreclosure and that he was to vacate the Property. Id. ¶ 8.

After Scarlett had failed to vacate the Property within three days, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action on May 19, 2014, in Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF No. 11-1. Plaintiff brought the action pursuant to sections 1161a and 1162(a)(3) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Id. Judgment was entered in Plaintiff's favor on June 19, 2014. ECF No. 11-2.

On July 28, 2014, Scarlett filed a writ of mandate with the appellate division of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, claiming error in the unlawful detainer action. Mot. at 3. The following day, Scarlett filed a bankruptcy petition staying the appellate proceedings. Id. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition on September 16, 2014, explaining that Scarlett had been barred in an April 14, 2014, order from filing any petitions for one year. ECF Nos. 11-6, 11-7. On October 22, 2014, the appellate division denied the writ and lifted the stay of eviction. ECF No. 11-4. As a result, the sheriff enforced the unlawful detainer judgment, and Plaintiff took possession of the Property on October 24, 2014. Mot. at 3.

Previously, on July 8, 2014, Plaintiff had also filed an action in Santa Clara County Superior Court to quiet title, cancel fraudulently recorded instruments, and seek declaratory relief. ECF No. 11-5. The complaint also alleged slander of title and civil conspiracy under state law. Id. Scarlett never answered the complaint, and default was entered on August 8, 2014. Mot. at 6; ECF No. 11 ¶ 6.

On September 30, 2014, Scarlett, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of both Plaintiff's unlawful detainer and quiet title actions to federal court. ECF No. 1. In his Notice of Removal, Scarlett appears to allege his own affirmative claims against Plaintiff. See id .[1] Scarlett also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. In response, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on November 10, 2014. Mot. at 8. Scarlett's Opposition was due November 24, 2014, but he failed to file one. A hearing on the motion has been set for February 19, 2015.

On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Application to Shorten Time for the motion hearing. ECF No. 14. Despite his failure to oppose the Motion to Remand, Scarlett opposed the Application to Shorten Time, filing a Motion to Strike the application on November 21, 2014. ECF No. 20.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A suit may be removed from state court to federal court only if the federal court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (" Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant."). If it appears at any time before final judgment that the federal court lacks ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.