Drake v. Griffith et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ; REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court for Lack of Jurisdiction, and DENYING 4 and 5 Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis AS MOOT, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/2016.. Copy of remand order sent to Kern County Superior Court, Mojave Branch, 1773 Hwy 58, Mojave, CA 93501, Case no. MCL-16-000378. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GEORGE PHILIP DRAKE, trustee of the
GEORGE PHILIP DRAKE REVOCABLE
TRUST,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD W. GRIFFITH and DEBORA
C. GRIFFITH,

No. 1:16-cv-01437-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REMANDING THE
MATTER TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,
AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAPERIS AS
MOOT

Defendants.

17

(Doc. No. 7)

18
19

Ronald and Debora Griffith seek removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in the Kern

20

County Superior Court, Case No. MCL-16-000378. (See Doc. No. 1.) Because an action for

21

unlawful detainer arises under state law and defenses raised in the answer do not invoke federal

22

jurisdiction, the assigned magistrate judge determined that this court lacks subject matter

23

jurisdiction over this action. (Doc. No. 7.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the

24

matter be remanded to Kern County Superior Court, and the pending motions to proceed in forma

25

pauperis be denied as moot. (Id. at 4.)

26

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the magistrate judge’s

27

findings and recommendations. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed to those findings and

28

recommendations.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

2

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of

3

the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations

4

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly,

5

1. The September 28, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in

6
7

full;
2. This action is remanded forthwith to the Kern County Superior Court for lack of

8
9

subject matter jurisdiction;
3. Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 4, 5) are denied as

10
11
12
13

moot; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2