Brekenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Bonds et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 , 6 . ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BREKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 GREGORY BONDS, et al., 14 Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6 Defendants. 15 Defendants Gregory and Wanda Bonds removed this unlawful detainer action from 16 17 Santa Clara County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. On December 7, 2017, the Court issued 18 an Order to Show Cause to the Bonds, requiring the Bonds to file a response addressing 19 why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 Dkt. No. 6. At that time, the Court also granted the Bonds’ application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis. Id. The Bonds responded to the Court’s order on December 29, 2017. Dkt. No. 22 11. The Court finds that response insufficient to retain this case in federal court.1 The Bonds do not follow up on their civil rights removal claim under 28 U.S.C. 23 24 § 1443(1); rather, the Bonds’ response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause is an attempt to 25 convert this unlawful detainer case into a wrongful foreclosure case. The Bonds argue that 26 the Court has jurisdiction because their home was wrongfully foreclosed upon. But this is 27 28 1 All parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. Nos. 7, 10, 13. Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC 1 not a wrongful foreclosure case, and the Court will not entertain such arguments here. 2 Thus, because the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court 3 REMANDS this unlawful detainer case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. In addition, 4 the Court DENIES AS MOOT Brekenridge’s motion to remand this case. Dkt. No. 9. The 5 Court does not award costs or expenses to Brekenridge as a result of this improper 6 removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). However, the Court cautions the Bonds that if they 7 improperly re-remove this case to federal court they may be subject to paying 8 Brekenridge’s costs and expenses incurred as a result of the removal. Id. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dated: January 10, 2018 13 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 17-cv-06633 NC 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?