In Re Lawrence Remsen and Alicia Marie Richards
Filing
9
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. No later than November 28, 2022, appellants shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed five (5) pages, addressing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (iv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SA CV 22-1813 FMO
Title
In Re Lawrence Remsen and Alicia Marie Richards
Present: The Honorable
Date
November 16, 2022
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Gabriela Garcia
None Present
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction
On October 5, 2022, Alicia Marie Richards (“Richards”) and Lawrence Remsen (“Remsen”)
(collectively, “appellants”) appealed the bankruptcy court’s order granting the Chapter 7 Trustee
Richard Marshack’s Emergency Motion for Remand of State Court Marital Dissolution Proceeding
(“Remand Order”). (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Appeal and Statement of Election); (id., Remand Order). The
bankruptcy court explained that it was “the second order remanding the same legal proceeding pending
in the family law division of the Superior Court for the County of Orange (‘State Court Marital Dissolution
Proceeding’) issued by [the bankruptcy court] in the past fourteen (14) days.” (Id., Remand Order at 2).
Among other things, the court noted that “[t]he subject notice of removal . . . was filed by Debtor[
Richard’s] father, Lawrence Remsen,” and that “Remsen is not a party to [the State Court Marital
Dissolution Proceeding] proceedings and may not remove the action to federal court.” (Id.).
In general, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,
516 U.S. 124, 129, 116 S.Ct. 494, 497 (1995) (“If an order remands a bankruptcy case to state court
because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then a
court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review that order under § 1447(d)[.]”). Here, the bankruptcy court
remanded the state court action in part because “Remsen was not permitted to remove this proceeding
in the first instance[,]” as he is not a party to the underlying State Court Marital Dissolution Proceeding.
(Dkt. 1, Remand Order at 4). Accordingly, the court questions whether it has jurisdiction to review the
Remand Order.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT no later than November 28, 2022, appellants
shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed five (5) pages, addressing why this
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to file the Response by
the deadline set forth above shall result in the action being dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962).
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
gga
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?