SGA Partners LP v. Cathy Williams et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The Court determines it lacks jurisdiction to hear this action and REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, Case Number UDFS1407435. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. Ms. Williams: If you again remove a related matter to this Court, you need to file a Notice of Related Case. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. If you again file a frivolous removal, it will result in sanctions. You are warned. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: None Present. (gk)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. CV 15-335-MWF(SPx)
Title:

Date: March 3, 2015

SGA Partners, LP -v- Cathy Williams, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Cheryl Wynn
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT
Plaintiff SGA Partners, LP (hereinafter “SGA”), initiated this action by
filing a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendant Cathy Williams in San
Bernardino County Superior Court. (Docket No. 1). On February 25, 2015,
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to remove the action to this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1452 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027. (Docket No. 1).
Defendant fails to adequately establish that this Court has jurisdiction over
this matter. This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject
matter jurisdiction. Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.
2012) (“[I]t is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject
matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . .’”
(quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
A party may remove any claim to the district court where the civil action is
pending if the district court has jurisdiction under section 1334. 28 U.S.C.
§1452(a). Section 1334(b) states that “. . . the district courts shall have original
but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in or related to cases under title 11.” Id. The Notice asserts jurisdiction of
such claim under § 1334(b) on the basis that this action is a core proceeding to a
bankruptcy case within this District. (Notice of Removal at 3).
However, Defendant does not provide any information as to this purported
bankruptcy case, such as a case number. This Court took it upon itself to run a
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. CV 15-335-MWF(SPx)

Date: March 3, 2015

Title:
SGA Partners, LP -v- Cathy Williams, et al.
search of this District’s bankruptcy docket and found two recent bankruptcy cases
related to Defendant. The first was filed on December 1, 2014, but was dismissed
on December 19, 2014, because of Defendant’s failure to file any of the required
documents under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007 or 3015(b) to
maintain her bankruptcy petition within the required time period. (Case No. 6:14BK-24470-SC (Docket No. 7)). The second, filed on January 7, 2015, was
dismissed on January 27, 2015 for the same reasons. (Case No. 6:15-BK-10117-SC
(Docket No. 8)). It is clear to this Court that Defendant does not have a bankruptcy
case to which this action may be related, and has attempted to manufacture
jurisdiction on that basis in order to delay resolution of the Unlawful Detainer
Action.
Accordingly, the Court determines it lacks jurisdiction to hear this action
and REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Bernardino. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and
its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. Local Rule 58-6.
Ms. Williams: If you again remove a related matter to this Court, you need
to file a Notice of Related Case. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. If you
again file a frivolous removal, it will result in sanctions. You are warned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2