California Housing Finance Agency v. Browning et al

Filing 20

ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Remand.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Plaintiff, 12 13 No. C 12-00105 WHA ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. 15 CECIL DARYL BROWNING, VICKIE LYNN BROWNING, and DAVID HERRERA, 16 Defendants. 14 / 17 18 On January 5, 2012, pro se defendant David Herrera removed this unlawful detainer 19 action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The complaint alleges a 20 violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a. There is no question of federal 21 law. Plaintiff California Housing Finance Agency filed a motion to remand on March 29, 2012. 22 No opposition was filed by defendants. On April 13, 2012, an order to show cause issued, 23 stating the motion to remand may be granted if no opposition was filed. Defendants failed to 24 respond to the order to show cause. A case management conference was scheduled for April 5, 25 2012. No one appeared except a substitute attorney for plaintiff’s attorney. An order to show 26 cause issued ordering defendants to appear for a hearing on May 3, 2012 to show cause why they 27 should not be held in contempt for failing to attend the conference. That same order continued 28 the case management conference to May 3. No one appeared for the case management conference set for May 3. 1 “Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Home 2 Loans Servicing , LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants have failed to oppose the 3 motion to remand and show that removal of this unlawful detainer action is proper. The motion 4 to remand the action to state court is GRANTED. The Clerk shall remand this action to the 5 Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. filing the motion to remand in the amount of $2,000. Defendants are all proceeding pro se and 8 defendant David Herrera has been granted in forma pauperis status. While the delay in the case 9 due to the pending motion to remand is regrettable, no attorney’s fees will be awarded against 10 our pro se defendants, at least one of whom is indigent. Moreover, plaintiff’s attorney failed to 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff California Housing Finance Agency seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in 7 United States District Court 6 attend both the initial and rescheduled case management conference. The request for attorney’s 12 fees is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 4, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?