Renfro et al v. J.G. Boswell Co. Inc. et al, No. 1:2017cv00418 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Re Defendant's Motion to Remand to State Court 5 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/6/17: CASE REMANDED to Superior Court for the County of Kings. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Copy (certified)of remand order sent to other court. (CASE CLOSED) (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER RENFRO, et al., 7 8 9 10 1:17-cv-418-LJO-EPG Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT (Doc. 5) v. J.G. BOSWELL CO., INC., et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a case against Defendants in the Superior Court for the County 14 of Kings, alleging various state-law claims. See Doc. 5-2 at 20. A few months later, Plaintiffs removed 15 the case to this Court, asserting additional federal claims and that this Court has jurisdiction. See Doc. 1 16 at 7 (plaintiffs stating “this case is a transfer from Kings County Superior Court on the basis of Federal 17 Law Violations”); Doc. 1-1 at (plaintiffs indicating on civil cover sheet that the origin of this case is 18 “Removed from State Court”). 19 Defendant Young’s Commercial Transfer, Inc., moves to remand the case to Superior Court. 20 Doc. 5. Defendant argues, among other things, that Plaintiffs are not permitted to remove their own case 21 under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), which provides that only “[a] defendant or 22 defendants” may remove a case from state court to federal court. 23 The Court agrees. The plain language of § 1446(a) permits only a defendant—not a plaintiff—to 24 remove a case from state court to federal court. See Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 25 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1446, in turn, sets forth the removal procedure for “[a] defendant 1 1 or defendants desiring to remove any civil action . . . from a State court.”) (emphasis in original); ASAP 2 Copy & Print v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 643 Fed. App’x 650, 652 (9th Cir. 2016) (“28 U.S.C. § 3 1443, like other federal removal statutes, permits removal only by defendants in state court actions”) 4 (emphasis in original). 5 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to remand. This case is REMANDED to Superior Court for the County of Kings. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ July 6, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.
