(PC) Tate v. Nakashyan, No. 1:2019cv01211 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2020. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01211-NONE-EPG (PC) DEREK TATE, Plaintiff, v. DIANA NAKASHYAN, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT (Doc. No. 11) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Derek Tate proceeds pro se in this action against Defendant Diana Nakashyan for 18 claims under California law. Defendant removed the case to this federal court on September 3, 19 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 20, 2019, plaintiff filed “objections” to defendant’s notice of 20 removal, which the court has construed as a motion to remand the action to state court. (Doc. No. 21 4.) The parties have briefed the issue. (Doc. Nos. 4, 8.) 22 On December 17, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that: “1. [p]laintiff’s objections to [d]efendant’s notice of 24 removal, construed as a motion to remand ([Doc.] No. 4.), be granted and this case be remanded 25 to Kern County Superior Court; 2. [p]laintiff’s Motion for Clarification ([Doc.] No. 10.) be 26 denied as moot; and 3. [t]he Clerk of Court be instructed to close this case.” ([Doc.] No. 11, p. 7.) 27 28 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Neither party did so and the time for the filing of any objections has passed. 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b0(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 17, 2019 are ADOPTED in full (Doc. No. 11); 7 8 2. This matter is HEREBY REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 9 10 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. No. 10.) is DENIED AS MOOT; and 11 4. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.