Bonnie Ford v. Charlene Eaton et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case number HEC1601207. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, 880 N. State Street, Hemet, CA 92543, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BONNIE FORD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. CV ED16-1391 CJC (SSx)

v.

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING

CHARLENE EATON and MICHAEL
RASMUSSEN,

IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state
court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.

20
21

On

June

28,

2016,

Defendants

Charlene

Eaton

and

Michael

22

Rasmussen, having been sued in what appears to be a routine

23

unlawful

24

Notice Of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented

25

an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

26

denied the latter application under separate cover because the

27

action was not properly removed.

28

remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to

detainer

action

in

California

state

court,

filed

a

The Court has

To prevent the action from

1

summarily remand the action to state court.

2
3

Simply stated, this action could not have been originally

4

filed in federal court because the complaint does not allege

5

facts

6

jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper.

7

1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545

8

U.S. 546, 563 (2005).

9

“[f]ederal

supporting

question

either

diversity

or

federal-question
28 U.S.C. §

Defendant’s Notice Of Removal asserts that
jurisdiction

exists

because

Defendants’

10

rights and Plaintiff’s duties are governed by federal due process

11

rights laws.”

12

are inadequate to confer federal question jurisdiction.

(Notice Of Removal at 2).

Defendants’ allegations

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED

15

to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, 880 N.

16

State

17

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send

18

a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the

19

Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

Street,

Hemet,

CA

92543,

for

lack

of

subject

matter

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

DATED:

July 13, 2016
_______________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2