H & H Property Management, Inc. v. Taylor
Filing
10
ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/5/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
H&H PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
LLC,
10
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
v.
12
ORDER
TYRONE T. TAYLOR, et al.,
13
No. C 13-5549 PJH
Defendants.
_______________________________/
14
15
Defendants Tyrone T. Taylor and Novella Taylor removed the above-entitled action
16
from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on December 2, 2013. Also on
17
December 2, 2013, defendants filed requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
18
("IFP").
19
On December 5, 2013, defendants filed an application for a temporary restraining
20
order and an order to show cause re preliminary injunction. Defendants seek an order
21
halting a court-ordered eviction, authorized by a writ of execution for possession of real
22
property, issued on October 31, 2013 pursuant to an judgment in an unlawful detainer
23
action (Alameda County Sup. Ct. Case No. RG13693822).
24
Defendants previously removed the same unlawful detainer action from the Alameda
25
County Superior Court (Alameda County Sup. Ct. Case No. RG13693822). The case was
26
removed to this court on October 29, 2013 as Case No. C-13-5039. On November 14,
27
2013, defendants filed an "emergency motion" for stay of execution. Also on November 14,
28
2013, the court issued an order remanding the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1
Because the court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of
2
the "emergency motion" for stay of execution.
3
For the reasons stated in the order issued on November 14, 2013 in case No. C-13-
4
5039, this case is REMANDED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court
5
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it does not reach the merits of the TRO application.
6
Based solely on the removing parties' financial affidavits, the court finds that the
7
request to proceed in forma pauperis should be GRANTED. Defendants will not be
8
required to pre-pay the filing fee. However, because the case is remanded, this court does
9
not order the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint or any other papers on the plaintiff.
The clerk is instructed to accept no further removals of this unlawful detainer action
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
filed by Tyrone Taylor or Novella Taylor, unless the filing is first approved by a judge of this
12
court.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: December 5, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
16
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?