Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05486/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05486-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

Case No. 14-cv-05486 NC 

REFERRAL AND 

RECOMMENDATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ORCHARD GLEN VENTURE, a California 

General Partnership, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HOWARD HILL, NATASHA HILL, and 

DOES I through V, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05486 NC

REFERRAL FOR 

REASSIGNMENT WITH 

RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND THE CASE TO STATE 

COURT 

This unlawful detainer action was removed to this Court by defendant Howard Hill, 

proceeding pro se. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-4. On December 31, 2014, the Court ordered Hill to 

show cause by January 14, 2015, why this case should not be remanded to state court for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 7. On January 5, 2015, Hill filed a letter 

requesting dismissal of the case without prejudice and remand to state court. Dkt. No. 8. 

The Court ordered the parties to file a consent or declination to the jurisdiction of a 

Magistrate Judge by January 29, 2015. Dkt. No. 9. 

Because the parties have not consented, this matter will be reassigned to a District 

Court Judge. The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court REMAND this case to 

the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, based on Hill’s non-opposition to 

the Court’s order to show cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 7. 

// 

Case 5:14-cv-05486-BLF Document 10 Filed 02/03/15 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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Case No

REFERR

RECOM

An

72(b)(2)

IT

D

. 14-cv-0548

RAL AND 

MMENDATI

ny party ma

) within fou

T IS SO OR

ate: Februa

86 NC 

ON

ay object to

urteen days 

RDERED. 

ary 3, 2015 

 

o this recom

after being 

 2 

mendation

served with

 ____ Nath

Unit

n under Fede

h a copy. 

__________ hanael M. C

ted States M

eral Rule of

__________ Cousins 

Magistrate J

f Civil Proc

____ 

Judge 

cedure 

Case 5:14-cv-05486-BLF Document 10 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2