FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Martin

Filing 10

ORDER granting 2 defendant's Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/8/12. The 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are ADOPTED. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento for lack of federal jurisdction. CASE CLOSED. (cc: Certified copy of this Order served on the Superior Court.) (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. CIV S-11-2647 LKK EFB PS

vs.

13

RENEE L. MARTIN,

14

Defendant.
__________________________________/

ORDER

15
16

On October 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

17

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

18

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

19

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

20

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
This action, on its face, is a purely state law action for money lent, due and

21
22

owing, and for unjust enrichment. The lack of federal jurisdiction plainly appears in the

23

complaint and in the notice of removal.

24
1

25
26

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations
was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court
apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at
the record address of the party is fully effective.
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

4

1. Pro se defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;

5

2. The proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 9) filed October 20,

6

2011, are ADOPTED; and

7

3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State

8

of California in and for the County of Sacramento for lack of federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 1447(c).

10

DATED: May 8, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2