McKinley Holding I LP v. Maria A. Salcedo

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King: Accordingly, IT is ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, Southwest Justice Center, 30755-D Auld Road, Murrieta, CA 92563, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the 17 parties. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103) (am)

Download PDF
" ~t .. OJnl- t' -( ('" = 1 2 rr rr ~~ 0 ;tc ~ 3 4 ./I¡.ri~~ : ~ :~¡~~~;i :: 5 ¡ n-.' I :i,Ç) w ¡..;? y? .-¡ I ;Yi;7J w 6 7 I 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 McKINLEY HOLDING I, LP, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. ED CV l2-l897-UA (DUTYx) ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION vs. MARIA A. SALCEDO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 The Court wil remand this unlawful detainer action to state court 19 summarily because defendant removed it improperly. 20 On October 31, 2012, defendant Maria A. Salcedo, having been sued in 21 what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court, that action to this Court, and also presented an 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter 22 lodged a Notice of Removal of 24 application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To limbo, the Court issues this 25 prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional 26 Order to remand the action to state court. 27 Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in 28 the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either 1 " r rr¡ o , # 1 diversity or federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.c. § l44l(a); Exxon Mobil 2 Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1443 is basdess, as she has not satisfied either prong of the two-part test 3 502 (2005). Further, defendant's assertion of removal 5 required for removal under § 1443(1). See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 6 999 (9th Cir. 2006). As described in more detail in the Order Denying Filing Fee, the Notice of 8 Removal fails to assert, as a defense to the unlawful detainer action, a statutory 7 Defendant's Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of 9 right for the protection of racial equality, and also fails to point to any state statute 10 or constitutional provision that commands the state courts to ignore such federal 11 right. 12 Accordingly, IT is ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the 13 Superior Court of California, Riverside County, Southwest Justice Center, 14 30755-D Auld Road, Murrieta, CA 92563, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction this 16 Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the 15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of 17 parties. 18 19 20 DATED: ((((Jr~ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?