Tony Adjian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 27

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT 16 .Plaintiff failed to timely challenge the removal under Section 1447(c). (lc) Modified on 3/24/2015 (lc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 14-8445-DMG (AJW)

Title Tony Adjian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
Present: The Honorable

March 24, 2015
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT [16]
On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff Tony Adjian filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court against Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Notice of Removal, Ex.
B, (“Complaint”). [Doc. # 1.] On October 31, 2014, Defendant filed a petition and notice of
removal (“Removal Petition”) to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. # 1.]
On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand (“MTR”) this case to
state court on the ground that Defendant’s filing and service of its notice for removal was not
timely. [Doc. # 16.] Defendant filed an opposition (“Opp.”) on December 24, 2014. [Doc. #
22.] Plaintiff filed a reply (“Reply”) on January 8, 2015. [Doc. # 23.] On January 14, 2015, the
Court deemed the MTR appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated the January
16, 2015 hearing date. [Doc. # 25.]
While Defendant does not raise the fact that Plaintiff’s MTR was untimely filed, the
Court must address this procedural defect. “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any
defect other than the lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the
filing of the notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, Plaintiff’s MTR is based solely on a
procedural defect in the removal, and was filed over 30 days after the removal. Plaintiff does not
challenge the removal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As failure to timely remove an action is a non-jurisdictional procedural defect, the Court
cannot even remand this case sua sponte. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v.
Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Plaintiff failed to timely
challenge the removal under Section 1447(c), the Court DENIES the MTR.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT