Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00683/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00683-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADM PROPERTIES, INC., NO. CIV. S-05-0683 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.

RONALD A. QUINN, JR. and KELLY

A. QUINN,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on motion to remand filed by

plaintiff ADM Properties, Inc. (“ADM”). Defendants Ronald Quinn

and Kelly Quinn (“defendants”) oppose the motion. For the

reasons stated herein, ADM’s motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2004, ADM commenced an unlawful detainer

action against defendants in Sacramento Superior court. 

Defendants filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy on January

7, 2005, which placed an automatic stay on the unlawful detainer

action. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). On February 3, 2005, ADM filed

Case 2:05-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 4
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 Section 1452(a) provides in pertinent part: 

A party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil

action . . . to the district court for the district where

such civil action is pending, if such district court has

jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section

1334 of this title.

2

a motion for relief from the automatic stay with the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California.

By order dated March 3, 2005, the bankruptcy court granted

ADM’s motion to modify the stay “to allow ADM and/or its

attorneys to take any and all action necessary, including, but

not limited to, continuing prosecution of the unlawful detainer

action filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, Miller Justice

Center . . . to take possession of that property commonly known

as 9408 Dante Court, Elk Grove, Sacramento County, California.” 

Defendants filed an answer and the case was set for trial on

April 8, 2005. On April 6, 2005, defendants filed a notice of

removal with this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Through

the present motion, ADM seeks to remand the case to state court.

ANALYSIS 

Initially, the court notes that defendants’ notice of

removal invoked the wrong removal statute. Defendants invoke 28

U.S.C. § 1441 as the basis for removal, but the matter does not

qualify for removal under that statute since the complaint does

not present a federal question and there is no diversity

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). While not cited by

defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1452 provides for removal of claims

related to bankruptcy cases.1 However, ADM’s failure to invoke

the appropriate removal statute does not affect the outcome since

Case 2:05-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 4
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

its notice of removal was untimely under either statute. 

28 U.S.C. § 1446 sets forth the procedure for removal of

actions under § 1441. Of significance here, § 1446(b)

establishes the deadlines for removal:

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding

shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by

the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy

of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for

relief upon which such action or proceeding is based .

. ..

If the case stated by the initial pleading is not

removable, a notice of removal may be filed within

thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through

service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading,

motion, order or other paper from which it may first be

ascertained that the case is one which is or has become

removable . . ..

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

The procedure for removal pursuant to § 1452 is contained in

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(2), which provides: 

(2) Time for filing; civil action initiated before

commencement of the case under the code

If the claim or cause of action in a civil action is

pending when a case under the Code is commenced, a

notice of removal may be filed only within the longest

of (A) 90 days after the order for relief in the case

under the Code, (B) 30 days after entry of an order

terminating a stay, if the claim or cause of action in

a civil action has been stayed under § 362 of the Code,

or (C) 30 days after a trustee qualifies in a chapter

11 reorganization case but not later than 180 days

after the order for relief.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027 (emphasis added).

Here, ADM’s complaint, which asserts state law claims only,

potentially became removable when defendants filed a voluntary

Case 2:05-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 3 of 4
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 court does not consider whether there are

substantive or procedural barriers to removal of this case. 

3 In their Notice of Removal, defendants asserted that

the automatic stay was lifted on March 11, 2005. (See Notice of

Removal filed April 6, 2005 ¶ 3.) Based on this representation,

the court did not summarily remand the matter to state court. 

Parties now agree that the stay was lifted March 3, 2005. 

4

petition for bankruptcy on January 7, 2005.2 However, the thirtyday period for removal began to run on March 3, 2005, when the

bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay.3 Defendants filed

their notice of removal April 6, 2005, which is greater than

thirty days after the matter became removable.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing analysis, ADM’s motion to remand the

case to Sacramento Superior Court is GRANTED. The clerk is

instructed to close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00683-FCD-KJM Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 4 of 4