Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TSO v. MURRAY, 15-cv-02398-REB-KLM. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20160211b19 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . This matter is before me on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#44] 1 filed January 7, 2016. The plaintiff filed objections [#49]. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and remand the underlying cases to the state court where they originated. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation
More

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before me on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#44]1 filed January 7, 2016. The plaintiff filed objections [#49]. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and remand the underlying cases to the state court where they originated.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, the other filings in this case, and the applicable law.

In this federal district court, this case originated with the filing by the plaintiff, Gilbert T. Tso, of a Notice of Petition and Verified petition for Warrant of Removal [#1] filed October 28, 2015. Mr. Tso seeks to remove two cases from the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, filed there under case numbers 14-cv-00456 and 13-DR-1684. See complaints and related orders [#3, #4, #5, #6, #7]. In both state cases, Gilbert T. Tso is the plaintiff. Gilbert T. Tso, as plaintiff, is the party who filed the notice of removal [#1] in the above captioned case.

The plaintiff asserts 28 U.S.C. § 1443 as the basis for removal of the state court cases to this federal court. As noted by the magistrate judge, under this statute, only a defendant in a state court action may remove a case from state court to federal court. Thus, Mr. Tso, as the plaintiff in both state court cases, is not authorized to remove those cases to federal court under § 1443. None of his arguments in support of removal refutes the ineluctable legal conclusion that he may not remove these cases under § 1443.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#44] is approved and adopted as an order of this court;

2. That the objections of the defendant [#49] are overruled;

3. That under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, these cases are remanded to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, where they were filed originally under case numbers 14-cv-00456 and 13-DR-1684;

4. That the Motion To Extend Time To Answer or Otherwise Plead [#65] filed by the defendants on February 4, 2016, is granted;

5. That the deadline for filing an answer or other responsive pleading or motion is extended to 21 days after the date of this order, absent a contrary order entered by the state court in the underlying state cases;

6. That all other pending motions, including those docketed as [#18, #26, #34, #36, #37, #39, #53, #61, #67, and #70], are denied as moot; and

7. That this case is closed.

FootNotes


1. "[#44]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer