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)

Download PDF
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?