(PS) Henderson v. The Getty and Luk Oil Amerika, No. 2:2009cv02401 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/10/09 RECOMMENDING that this case be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento; and the clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr;Objections due within 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Henderson v. The Getty and Luk Oil Amerika Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARGARET FULLERTON ROMANOV HENDERSON, 11 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2401 FCD EFB PS 12 vs. 13 14 15 THE GETTY AND LUK OIL AMERIKA, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 17 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 18 undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On August 26, 19 2009, plaintiff filed a “Notice to Adverse Parties of Filing of Notice of Removal” and a motion 20 to proceed in forma pauperis. Dckt. Nos. 1, 2. Jurisdiction, plaintiff asserts, is premised on 28 21 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. 22 Section 1441(a) of Title 28 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of 23 which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 24 defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division 25 embracing the place where such action is pending” (emphasis added). Additionally, Section 26 1446 of Title 28 provides that “[a] defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action or 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 criminal prosecution from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the 2 district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal” (emphasis added). 3 This matter was improvidently removed by plaintiff, and as such, the court recommends that it 4 be remanded to the state court in which it was initiated.1 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. This case be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the 7 County of Sacramento; and, 8 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 14 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 15 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: September 10, 2009. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 Plaintiff also improvidently removed several other actions to this court. See Civ. S-092193 FCD EFB, Civ. S-09-2194 JAM GGH, Civ. S-09-2196 GEB EFB, Civ. S-09-2230 JAM GGH, and Civ. S-09-2231 GEB DAD. One of the actions has already been remanded, see Civ. S-09-2231 GEB DAD, and remand has been recommended in the remainder. 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.