Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMMY MCLEAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDESINDO FERNANDEZ, a.k.a. 

RUDESINDO R. FERNANDEZ III, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND 

REMANDING TO STATE COURT

On October 12, 2016, the court issued an order giving effect to a joint stipulation between 

plaintiff Tammy McLean and defendant United States. (Doc. No. 39.) In particular, the court 

entered an order quieting title in favor of defendant United States, and directing the Clerk of the 

Court to close the case. (Id.) This final aspect of the order, directing the court clerk to close the 

case, however, was issued in error because two defendants remain in the case, Citibank (South 

Dakota), N.A., and Beatrice Fernandez. As to these two defendants plaintiff requested entry of 

default. (Doc. No. 27.) A Clerk’s Entry of Default was issued. (Doc. No. 30.) However, 

plaintiff has never moved for entry of default judgment as to these defendants. This action shall 

therefore be reopened with respect to these two remaining defendants.

/////

/////

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 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

Because the removing defendant United States is no longer a party to this action, however, 

the complaint no longer presents a valid federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1444.1There are no 

claims remaining in this action that “necessarily depend on resolution of an actual and disputed 

federal issue.” Franklin AAA Holdings, LLC v. L.A. Cty. Tax Collector, CV 10–7041 AHM 

(PJWx), 2011 WL 165401, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011). This court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 13672over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims 

against the two remaining defendants as to whom a Clerk’s Entry of Default has been entered, 

and remands the action to the Kern County Superior Court for any further proceedings plaintiff 

may wish to pursue.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. The court vacates the October 12, 2016 order only to the extent that it directed the Clerk 

of the Court to close this case;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall reopen this case; and

3. The case is remanded to the Kern County Superior Court for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1444, “Any action brought under section 2410 of this title against the United 

States in any State court may be removed by the United States to the district court of the United 

States for the district and division in which the action is pending.”

2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2