Marian Turner et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2013cv08361 - Document 15 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: IN CHAMBERS COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Notice of Removal filed by plaintiffs Marian Turner, Lisa Turner, and Cornelius Turner (collectively "Plaintiffs") on November 12, 2013, appears to suffer from numerous procedural defec ts. In light of these potential procedural defects, the parties are ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded. Defendants' response to this order to show cause shall be filed no later than December 20, 2013. The fa ilure by defendants to file a response by that date shall be deemed a waiver of any procedural defects. Should defendants respond to the order to show cause and assert that the Notice of Removal is procedurally defective, Plaintiffs response to this order to show cause shall be filed no later than January 3, 2013. After that date, the matter will be deemed submitted and the Court will notify the parties once it has reached a decision. Nothing in this order to show cause shall be considered to limit the Courts authority to address the serious issues related to Plaintiffs invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as a basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Court may, at any time before final judgment, remand an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (jre)

Download PDF
Marian Turner et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 13-8361 PA (Ex) Title Marian Turner, et al. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., et al. Present: The Honorable Date December 12, 2013 PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Paul Songco None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — COURT ORDER The Notice of Removal filed by plaintiffs Marian Turner, Lisa Turner, and Cornelius Turner (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on November 12, 2013, appears to suffer from numerous procedural defects. Among these potential procedural defects are: (1) The Notice of Removal was filed by Plaintiffs despite the fact that both 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446 allow only a defendant to file a Notice of Removal. (2) The Notice of Removal appears to have been filed well after the expiration of the 30-day limit on the filing of a Notice of Removal established by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). (3) The Notice of Removal appears to be based on the same grounds as Plaintiffs’ December 6, 2012 Notice of Removal in Case No. CV 12-10434 PA (Ex). As a result, the current Notice of Removal may violate the rule against successive removals. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] second removal petition based on the same grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction.”). (4) The Notice of Removal does not appear to include “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served” upon defendants as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Specifically, the Notice of Removal, among other things, does not appear to include a complete copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In light of these potential procedural defects, the parties are ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded. Defendants’ response to this order to show cause shall be filed no later than December 20, 2013. The failure by defendants to file a response by that date shall be deemed a waiver of any procedural defects. Should defendants respond to the order to show cause and assert that the Notice of Removal is procedurally defective, Plaintiffs’ response to this order to show cause shall be filed no later than January 3, 2013. After that date, the matter will be deemed submitted and the Court will notify the parties once it has reached a decision. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 13-8361 PA (Ex) Date Title December 12, 2013 Marian Turner, et al. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., et al. Nothing in this order to show cause shall be considered to limit the Court’s authority to address the serious issues related to Plaintiffs’ invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court may, at any time before final judgment, remand an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.