Shalov v. Ladah et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting Defendants' 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Clark County District Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - Copy of Order & Docket Sheet to 8th Judicial District Court - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

Susan Shalov,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.
Ramzy P. Ladah; et al.,

9
10

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 2:15-cv-0773-GMN-VCF
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

11
12

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand filed by Defendants Ramzy P.

13

Ladah, Ladah Law Firm PLLC, and Las Vegas Personal Injury LLC. (ECF No. 7). Pro

14

se Plaintiff Susan Shalov responded in opposition, (ECF No. 11), 1 and Defendants

15

replied, (ECF No. 12). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant Defendants

16

Motion and remand this action to Clark County District Court.

17

Plaintiff filed this action in Clark County District Court on October 14, 2013,

18

raising a claim for legal malpractice against her former attorney, Defendant Ramzy

19

Ladah, and two law firms with which he is allegedly associated. (First Am. Compl., Pet.

20

for Rem. pp. 20-27, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff removed the case to this Court on April 27,

21

2015, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 as the basis for the removal. (Pet. for Rem. ¶ 2).

22

In the instant Motion, Defendants argue that this action must be remanded because

23

Plaintiff s removal of her own case was procedurally improper. Indeed, it is well

24
25

pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed her filings, holding
them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Page 1 of 2

1

established that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 permit removal only by a party who is

2

named as a defendant. E.g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104-07

3

(1941); Oregon Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972); Rodis v.

4

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., No. 12-cv-0271-KJD-VCF, 2012 WL 4040222, at *2 (D.

5

Nev. Sept. 11, 2012).

6

Acknowledging the procedural shortcomings of her removal, Plaintiff states that

7

she seeks an exception to the rule governing Removal of her case . . . . (Pl. s Resp.

8

5:10-11, ECF No. 11). However, this Court is without authority to grant such an

9

exception, as the language of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, as well as the relevant rulings

10

of the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit provide that only a defendant may remove an

11

action to federal court. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff s removal was

12

procedurally improper, and Defendants Motion will be granted.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 7),
is GRANTED.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Clark County
17
18
19

District Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
DATED this 9th day of September, 2015. 2015.
DATED this _____ day of September,

20
21
22

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

23
24
25

Page 2 of 2