Deutsche Bank v. Jeanette Stewart et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING REMOVING DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER AND TO FILE STATE ACTION COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Removing Defendant shall show cause in writing, on or before Novembe r 27, 2017, as to why monetary sanctions or other disciplinary measures as deemed appropriate, including denial of Removing Defendant's pending Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP Request") and/or a remand of this matter back to the Superior Court should not be imposed due to Removing Defendant's failure to comply with the October Order and to file a copy of the State Action Complaint. See order for further details. (hr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Deutsche Bank v. Jeanette Stewart, et al.
Present: The Honorable
November 15, 2017
Jacqueline Chooljian, United States Magistrate Judge
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
REMOVING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER
AND TO FILE STATE ACTION COMPLAINT
On September 27, 2017, Lisa Sharae Haney (“Removing Defendant”), who is at liberty and is
representing herself, filed a Notice of Removal purporting to remove Los Angeles County Superior
Court Case No. 17F02908 (“State Action”) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. Contrary to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), the Notice of Removal is not accompanied by a copy
of the State Action Complaint – the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the State
Action against the Removing Defendant is based. In light of the foregoing, this Court, on October 2,
2017, ordered the Removing Defendant forthwith, and by no later than thirty (30) days from the date of
such Order (i.e., by November 1, 2017), to file a copy of the State Action Complaint (“October Order”).
Such deadline expired more than two weeks ago and to date, Removing Defendant has failed to file a
copy of the State Action Complaint or to seek an extension of time to do so.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Removing Defendant shall show cause in writing, on or before
November 27, 2017, as to why monetary sanctions or other disciplinary measures as deemed
appropriate, including denial of Removing Defendant’s pending Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(“IFP Request”) and/or a remand of this matter back to the Superior Court should not be imposed due to
Removing Defendant’s failure to comply with the October Order and to file a copy of the State Action
Complaint. Removing Defendant is cautioned that the failure timely to comply with this Order
and/or to show good cause, may result in the imposition of sanctions, including denial of the IFP
Request and/or a remand of this matter back to Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
The Court’s orders herein constitute non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters. To the extent a
party disagrees with such non-dispositive rulings, such party may file a motion for review by the
assigned District Judge within fourteen (14) days. See Local Rule 72-2.1. To the extent a party believes
the rulings to be dispositive, rather than non-dispositive, such party has the right to object to this Court’s
determination that the rulings are non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days. A party will be foreclosed
from challenging the rulings herein if such party does seek review thereof, or object thereto.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?