YNP Holdings, Inc. v. Only Escrow, Inc. et al

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS To Show Cause Re: Removal by Judge Gary A. Feess. Freddie Mac is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than 8/13/2012 as to why removal was timely. If removal was timely, Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of removal - in this case, until 8/15/2012 - to file an appropriate motion for remand. See order for details. (csi)

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-6095-GAF

Title

YNP Holdings, Inc. v. Only Escrow, Inc. et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

August 9, 2012

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Chris Silva for Renee Fisher
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMOVAL

On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff YNP Holdings, Inc. filed this action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, asserting various state-law claims against Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and other Defendants in connection with the failed short sale of
Plaintiff’s property in Bermuda Dunes, California. (Docket No. 1 [Not. of Removal], Ex. A
[Compl.].) Freddie Mac removed the case to this Court on July 16, 2012, alleging this Court’s
jurisdiction pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f) (federal agency jurisdiction). (Not. of Removal ¶ 2.)
However, the Count cannot presently conclude that Defendant has complied with the procedural
requirements for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446(b). Freddie Mac is therefore
ORDERED to show cause why removal was timely.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the notice of removal of a civil action “shall be filed
within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of
the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is
based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (emphasis added). “If a notice of removal is filed after this thirtyday window, it is untimely and remand to state court is therefore appropriate.” Babasa v.
LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007). Although 28 U.S.C. § 1442 grants federal
agencies the unilateral right to remove, “the 30-day time limit clearly applies to removals based
on federal [agency] jurisdiction.” Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. C03-4326 THE, 2003
WL 25739368, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2003).
Here, Freddie Mac does not allege or provide evidence of the date on which it was served
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-6095-GAF

Date

Title

August 9, 2012

YNP Holdings, Inc. v. Only Escrow, Inc. et al

with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. (See Not. of Removal.) Accordingly, the Court
cannot presently determine whether removal was timely. Freddie Mac is hereby ORDERED
TO SHOW CAUSE no later than Monday, August 13, 2012, as to why removal was timely.
If removal was untimely, Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of removal—in this case, until
August 15, 2012—to file an appropriate motion for remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2