Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALITY INVESTMENT GROUP, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY B. SILVERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-01239-EMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO ENFORCE 

AUTOMATIC STAY

Docket No. 3

Defendant Cynthia Gawley-Uy has removed this unlawful detainer action from state to 

federal court. The day after she filed her notice of removal, she filed a request for relief with this 

Court titled “Ex Parte Application . . . to Enforce the Automatic Stay.” Although the application 

is not the model of clarity, it appears that Ms. Gawley-Uy is asking the Court to ensure that the 

state court and/or Plaintiff Quality Investment Group, Inc. complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). 

That statute provides that, after a notice of removal is filed, “the defendant . . . shall give written 

notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State 

court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until 

the case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

For purposes of this order, the Court assumes that Ms. Gawley-Uy has given notice to 

Quality and that she has filed a copy of her notice of removal with the state court. Even with this 

assumption, the Court DENIES Ms. Gawley-Uy relief because (1) she has not presented any 

evidence that, since the removal, Quality has asked the state court to take action and (2) she has 

not presented any evidence that, since the removal, the state court has otherwise taken action with 

respect to the case. In any event, the removal effectively deprives the state court of jurisdiction,

Case 3:20-cv-01239-EMC Document 5 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and this Court does not expect the state court to act unless and until the case is remanded back to 

state court. 

The Court notes for Ms. Gawley-Uy’s benefit (she is proceeding pro se) that, as a general 

matter, there must be an emergency if she is asking for something akin a temporary restraining 

order. Also, ex parte requests for relief are generally disfavored, and, typically, a party must give 

to the other party reasonable advance notice of a request for relief. Here, it appears that Quality 

was given approximately two hours notice that Ms. Gawley-Uy had asked for a hearing on her 

application. That is not sufficient.

Finally, it appears that Quality intends to seek a remand of this case back to state court. So 

that this case is not unnecessarily delayed, the Court encourages Quality to promptly make an 

appearance in this case and file its motion to remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01239-EMC Document 5 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2