Mosser Companies, Inc. v. Eberwein

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If plaintiff fails to respond within 28 days of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall terminate the docket and close the file. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/13/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff, 7 8 9 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. ROBERT D EBERWEIN, Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3 Defendant. 10 11 CASE NO. 17-cv-05707-YGR On October 3, 2017, defendant Robert D. Eberwein, representing himself pro se, filed this 12 action styled as a removal. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant’s filing does not sufficiently identify in his 13 removal papers from which proceeding below he is seeking removal, or the basis for this Court’s 14 jurisdiction. At page 1 of Docket Number 1, he indicates that he is removing the action from 15 Mosser v. Eberwein, No. 17-CV-659496 (S.F. Sup. Ct.). Attached to this document, however, are 16 several documents that do not appear to pertain to the proceeding from which he is seeking 17 removal, including: a motion to reopen adversary proceedings filed in bankruptcy court in the 18 Southern District of New York, an order directing payment of fee or amended IFP application in 19 the Southern District of New York, an application to proceed IFP filed in the Southern District of 20 New York, and an order denying an ex parte application for shortening of time filed in bankruptcy 21 court in the Northern District of California, among several others. None of these matters can be 22 removed. 23 With regard to the San Francisco Superior Court case referenced herein, defendant has 24 transmitted to this court the following: (i) a notice of appeal regarding an August 31, 2017 order, 25 filed on September 28, 2017; (ii) an August 31, 2017 order authorizing service of summons and 26 complaint by posting and mailing; (iii) a partial copy of the docket; and (iv) a judgment for 27 plaintiff in the amount of $7,425.00, entered on October 2, 2017 for an unlawful detainer. (Dkt. 28 No. 1 at 12–14; 23–26.) These are similarly not removable. 1 Concurrently, defendant filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 3.) 2 However, defendant’s filing does not provide sufficient facts demonstrating his need for relief 3 with regard to filing fees. In fact, his application lists multiple individuals as declarants, and 4 appears to be copied whole-sale from defendant’s previous attempt at removing what appears to be 5 the same action earlier this year. See Docket, Mosser Cos., Inc. v. Eberwein, et al., No. 17-CV- 6 3678-HSG (N.D. Cal.). 7 Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to identify the basis of removal jurisdiction and identify what pending complaint, if any, he seeks to remove from state court. See 9 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 10 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such 12 action is pending.”). If plaintiff fails to respond within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order, the 13 Clerk of the Court shall terminate the docket and close the file. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: October 13, 2017 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?