THR California LP v. Doris Boykins et al

Filing 4

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Manuel L. Real. A district court must remand a case to state court if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because this is an u nlawful detainer action, a federal question does not present itself. See Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. CV 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter j urisdiction where plaintiffs complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). As such, this case is now REMANDED TO STATE COURT. Also, the pro se individual who seems to have attempted this removal, Vada Everett Boykins, is not the named defenda nt in the underlying action and has no standing to do anything in this case; however, had defendant Doris Boykins herself attempted the removal, the result would be the same, the case would be remanded for the reasons as listed above. IT IS SO ORDERED AND REMANDED. Remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1202220. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter CV-103) (kti)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAKE JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV-13-296-R

Date: FEBRUARY 19, 2013

Title: THR CALIFORNIA LP etc. -V- DORIS BOYKINS
==========================================================================
PRESENT: HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL, JUDGE
William Horrell
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT

A district court must remand a case to state court “if at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because this is an unlawful
detainer action, a federal question does not present itself. See
Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. CV 09-2337, 2010 WL
234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action
to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s
complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). As such,
this case is now REMANDED TO STATE COURT. Also, the pro
se individual who seems to have attempted this removal, Vada
Everett Boykins, is not the named defendant in the underlying action
and has no standing to do anything in this case; however, had defendant
Doris Boykins herself attempted the removal, the result would be the
same, the case would be remanded for the reasons as listed above.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND REMANDED.
cc: counsel of record

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___WH____