Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01050-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC., CASE NO. CV F 08-1050 LJO SMS

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS

vs.

WESTERN INVESTMENT REAL

ESTATE TRUST, et. al,

Defendants.

 /

The Court has received and reviewed plaintiff’s ex parte application for reconsideration and

request to issue a summons to plaintiff for purported defendant "Kirrberg Corporation." (Doc. 31.) As

more fully stated in its order on August 22, 2008, this Court denied plaintiff’s request to the Clerk of this

Court for issuance of a summons. Citing California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court noted that “a

judge's signature is required to correct the name. Since the Superior Court Judge did not sign the

amendment, the Kirrberg Corporation was not substituted into the case. Therefore, summons will not

be issued for an entity which is not a named party.” (Doc. 30, Order p. 2.) The Court directed that “[i]f

plaintiff seeks to correct the name, plaintiff may make the appropriate motion to the Court.” (Doc. 30,

Order, p. 2) 

In plaintiff’s ex parte application, plaintiff attaches a signed order by the Superior Court

judge, which was signed before the removal of this case to this Court. Plaintiff, however, received

Case 1:08-cv-01050-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 08/25/08 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

the signed order after removal and the signed order was not included in the removal papers. 

A copy of all pleadings, process and orders served on the removing defendant in the state

action must be filed with the removal notice. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). The signed order was not

included in the removal papers and needed to have been included for the relief sought by plaintiff. 

The proper available procedure is for plaintiff to move to amend the removal petition to add the

missing order. The proper procedure is not an ex parte motion for reconsideration. (See Local Rule

6-144 and Local Rule 78-230(k).) The Court directs plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 78-230 in

law and motion matters.

The ex parte application for reconsideration is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01050-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 2