Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01374/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01374-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 - 10cv1374-WQH-WVG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES KNUFF,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1374-WQH-WVG

ORDER

vs.

GARY S. GEVISSER AND ADAM

TUCKER,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On July 27, 2010, the Court issued an Order which concluded:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Gevisser is ORDERED TO

SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be remanded to state court for (1)

failure to serve Plaintiff with the notice of removal; and/or (2) failure to remove

this action to the proper venue. Defendant Gevisser shall respond to this Order

on or before August 20, 2010. If Defendant Gevisser fails to respond by August

20, 2010, or fails to adequately show cause, the Court will remand this action to

the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 101st Judicial District, where it was

originally filed and assigned cause number 10-2004.

(Doc. # 7 at 3).

On August 20, 2010, Defendant Gary S. Gevisser, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se,

filed an “Answer to Order to Show Cause” (Doc. # 9), and an “Amended Answer to Order

Show Cause” (Doc. # 10). Gevisser asserts: “The proper venue ... is California because

Plaintiff Knuff, Defendants Gevisser and Tucker all live in California and the purported

alleged cause of action took place in California.” Id. at 1.

“The venue of removed actions is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).... Section 1441(a)

expressly provides that the proper venue of a removed action is ‘the district court of the United

States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.’” Polizzi

Case 3:10-cv-01374-WQH-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - 10cv1374-WQH-WVG

v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665-66 (1953) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (“A defendant ... desiring to remove any civil action ... from a State

court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within

which such action is pending a notice of removal....”). Courts strictly construe the removal

statute against removal jurisdiction. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,

108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “When a party removes

a case to the improper federal court district, that district court’s appropriate response should

be to remand the case back to state court and not to transfer it under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1406(a), to

the proper district.” Maysey v. Craveonline Media, LLC, No. 09-1364, 2009 WL 3740737, at

*2 (D. Ariz., Nov. 5, 2009) (collecting cases).

Defendant Gevisser has attempted to remove to this Court a state court action which

was pending in Dallas County, Texas at the time of the purported removal. As stated in the

Court’s July 27, 2010 Order, the only venue to which an action pending in Texas state court

may be removed is the appropriate United States District Court in Texas. See 28 U.S.C. §

1441(a); Polizzi, 345 U.S. at 665-66.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the District Court of

Dallas County, Texas, 101st Judicial District, where it was originally filed and assigned cause

number 10-02004.

DATED: August 30, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01374-WQH-WVG Document 11 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 2