Filed: Mar. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 11 WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge. On August 13, 2013, plaintiff Coast to Coast Investments, LLC, filed an action for unlawful detainer against defendant Sergio Luna in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Pedro Garcia and Jennifer Garcia claim an interest in the property, appeared as defendants, and filed a notice of removal to this Court on January 9, 2014. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On February 13, 2014, the plainti
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 11 WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge. On August 13, 2013, plaintiff Coast to Coast Investments, LLC, filed an action for unlawful detainer against defendant Sergio Luna in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Pedro Garcia and Jennifer Garcia claim an interest in the property, appeared as defendants, and filed a notice of removal to this Court on January 9, 2014. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On February 13, 2014, the plaintif..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 11
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
On August 13, 2013, plaintiff Coast to Coast Investments, LLC, filed an action for unlawful detainer against defendant Sergio Luna in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Pedro Garcia and Jennifer Garcia claim an interest in the property, appeared as defendants, and filed a notice of removal to this Court on January 9, 2014. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On February 13, 2014, the plaintiff moved to remand. Dkt. No. 11. The defendants' opposition brief was due on February 27, 2014, but they have not filed anything to date.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), I find this matter suitable for decision without hearing and VACATE the hearing currently set for March 26, 2014.
This is the third time the defendants have removed this same action to this Court. See Coast to Coast Investments, LLC v. Luna, No. 13-cv-4602-PJH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013); Coast to Coast Investments, LLC v. Luna, No. 14-cv-131-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014). In their last two attempts, the case was remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, the second attempt was before me and I concluded that the removal was untimely and that there was no basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the action. No. 14-cv-131, Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3.
Nothing about this attempt is different. Although it is unlikely that the defendants can successfully redress the defects identified by the orders remanding the two earlier cases, the defendants have not even attempted to address them in either of the two later cases. Their successive removal attempts appear to be efforts at delaying proper adjudication of this matter.1 At the same time, they appear unwilling to diligently prosecute their cases. In the earliest case, the defendants failed to respond to an order to show cause issued by the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley. Coast to Coast Investments, LLC v. Luna, No. 13-cv-4602-PJH, slip op. at 1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013). In a bankruptcy proceeding, Jennifer Garcia failed to comply with a court order to file information necessary for the proceeding, leading to its dismissal. See In re Jennifer Garcia, No. 13-bk-46550, slip op. at 1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014). In this case, the defendants did not timely respond to the motion to remand.
For the reasons discussed in my prior order remanding this case, the motion is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. The Clerk shall close the file.
The defendants are cautioned that any further filings that are frivolous will subject them to sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
