Filed: Oct. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. Defendant is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 15, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, ECF No. 19, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant filed objections to the
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. Defendant is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 15, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, ECF No. 19, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant filed objections to the f..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
Defendant is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On September 15, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, ECF No. 19, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant filed objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 20, and Plaintiff filed a reply, ECF No. 23.
On September 29, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Notice of Removal. ECF No. 21. Because there is no good cause to grant Defendant a fourth opportunity to demonstrate that federal jurisdiction exists, Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 21, is DENIED.
As to the remaining matters before the Court, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo review. The Court finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Notice of Removal, ECF No. 21, is DENIED;
2. The findings and recommendations filed September 15, 2014, ECF No. 19, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED;
4. Defendant's Motion for Declaratory Relief, ECF No. 12, is DENIED AS MOOT;
5. Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Declaratory Relief, ECF No. 17, is DENIED AS MOOT;
6. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, with the Clerk of the Court directed to transfer the file accordingly; and
7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
