Shoreline Assets Group, LLC v. Jopillo

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Defendant is ordered to respond to this order by July 8, 2013 to show cause for her failure to respond to the Remand Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/02/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
SHORELINE ASSETS GROUP,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),

No. C-13-02657 DMR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

14

SOFIA G JOPILLO,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Defendant Sofia G. Jopillo (“Defendant”) removed this unlawful detainer action to federal

18

court on June 10, 2013, alleging that this court had removal jurisdiction premised on 28 U.S.C. §

19

1332 (diversity jurisdiction), because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in

20

controversy exceeds $75,000, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), because there

21

are, inter alia, federal questions regarding Defendant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth

22

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Notice of Removal [Docket No. 1] at 2-4.

23

On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff Shoreline Assets Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to

24

remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, where it was

25

originally filed. See Remand Motion [Docket No. 4.] According to Civil Local Rule 7-3,

26

Defendant’s response to the Remand Motion was due on June 28, 2013. To date, Defendant has not

27

filed a response to the Remand Motion.

28

1

On June 24, 2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (“Notice of Voluntary Dismissal”), stating that

3

Defendant “hereby dismiss[es] the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice . . . . pursuant to

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) . . . .” [Docket No. 5.]

5

Defendant may not voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) because the rule

6

provides only for voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff, not a defendant. Defendant is ordered to

7

respond to this order by July 8, 2013 to show cause for her failure to respond to the Remand

8

Motion. In addition, Defendant must simultaneously (1) submit her opposition to the court or (2) file

9

a statement of non-opposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). This order to
show cause does not indicate that the court will necessarily accept Defendant’s late submission(s), if

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

any. If Defendant does not respond to this order by July 8, 2013, Defendant’s Notice of Voluntary

12

Dismissal may be treated as a statement of nonopposition to the Remand Motion, and the Remand

13

Motion may be granted.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: July 2, 2013

18
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2