Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00880/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00880-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The complaint filed in state court does not name Mary Bochum as a defendant. 

(See complaint attached to notice of removal.) 

08cv880

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY L. BELLE; MARY BOCHUM,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv880 L(WMc)

ORDER STRIKING NOTICE OF

APPEAL AND REQUEST TO STAY

JUDGMENT

On May 16, 2008, putative defendant Mary Bochum (“Bochum”), appearing pro se, filed

a notice of removal from the State of California, Superior Court for the County of San Diego. 

The state court complaint alleges a claim against Rodney L. Belle (“Belle”) only1

 for unlawful

detainer. After reviewing Bochum’s notice of removal, the Court remanded the action to the

state court concluding that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and for

procedural deficiencies. See Order filed May 21, 2008 [doc. #3]. On May 23, 2008, Mary

Bochum filed a “Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Court of Appeal, Stay of Judgment.” [doc.

#4]. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00880-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 The exception to the rule that remand orders are not appealable is found in § 1447

(d): “ An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on

appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was

removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d)(emphasis added). Bochum’s notice of removal was not based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

2 08cv880

Remand orders are not appealable.2 The statute addressing remand after removal

provides that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not

reviewable on appeal or otherwise ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The statute also provides that after

a federal court issues an order to remand the case back to state court, “[t]he State court may

thereupon proceed with such case.” Id. § 1447(c). The cumulative effect of these two rules is

clear: a party may not appeal a remand order in federal court because once the remand order

issues, the case may proceed immediately in state court. This rule is also reflected in case law:

“Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review

district court orders remanding removed cases to state court.” Things Remembered Inc. v.

Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). In accordance with these restrictions, the Supreme Court

has held that an appeal is available only when a district court bases its remand on grounds other

than those specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “As long as a district court's remand is based on a

timely raised defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction – the grounds

for remand recognized by § 1447(c) – a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal

of the remand order under § 1447(d).” Id. at 127-28. 

This Court remanded the present case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

procedural deficiencies which are “precisely the type of removal defect contemplated by §

1447(c),” and no appeal of the remand order is available. Id. at 128.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00880-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 08cv880

Based on the foregoing, Bochum’s notice of appeal and request for stay of judgment is

STRICKEN from the record and the case shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 28, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00880-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/08 Page 3 of 3