Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01278/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01278-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CTC REAL ESTATE SERVICES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

BILL FELTON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-CV-01278-AWI-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

REMAND (DOC. 5)

Defendants removed Plaintiff’s action regarding taxes from

the Merced County Superior Court. The matter has been referred to

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion to remand the action. By previous order, the hearing on

the motion was vacated, and the matter was deemed submitted on

the pleadings.

I. Magistrate Judge’s Jurisdiction

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) provides in pertinent part:

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary--

(A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear

and determine any pretrial matter pending before

the court, except a motion for injunctive relief,

for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment,

to dismiss or quash an indictment or information

made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a

criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance

Case 1:06-cv-01278-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 5
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

of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, and to 

involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the 

court may reconsider any pretrial matter under

this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that

the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate to

conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings,

and to submit to a judge of the court proposed

findings of fact and recommendations for the 

disposition, by a judge of the court, of any

motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications

for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted

of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions

challenging conditions of confinement.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 provides in pertinent part:

(a) Nondispositive Matters. A magistrate judge to whom

a pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense

of a party is referred to hear and determine shall 

promptly conduct such proceedings as are required and

when appropriate enter into the record a written

order setting forth the disposition of the matter. 

Within 10 days after being served with a copy of 

the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and 

file objections to the order; a party may not 

thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate

judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

consider such objections and shall modify or set aside

any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to 

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

(b) Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Petitions. A

magistrate judge assigned without consent of the

parties to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a

claim or defense of a party or a prisoner petition

challenging the conditions of confinement shall 

promptly conduct such proceedings as are required.

A record shall be made of all evidentiary proceedings

before the magistrate judge, and a record may be made

of such other proceedings as the magistrate judge

deems necessary. The magistrate judge shall enter 

into the record a recommendation for disposition

of the matter, including proposed findings of fact

when appropriate. The clerk shall forthwith mail

copies to all parties. 

The question presented is whether a motion to remand a

proceeding to state court is a nondispositive motion that a

magistrate judge can determine, or a dispositive motion that a

Case 1:06-cv-01278-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 5
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

district judge must determine so that a magistrate judge may only

issue only findings and recommendations. Some of the circuit

courts of appeals have held that motions to remand are

dispositive, and thus a magistrate judge does not have

jurisdiction to determine such a motion. The reasoning is that

although such motions are not enumerated in § 636(b)(1)(A), they

nevertheless are functionally the equivalent of a motion for

involuntary dismissal because they determine that there will not

be a federal forum available to entertain a particular dispute.

Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co., 258 F.3d 509, 514-17 (6 Cir. th

2001) (noting a lack of decisions from other circuits); First

Union Mortgage Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 994-97 (10 Cir. th

2000); In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 145-46 (3d Cir.

1998). The Ninth Circuit has not taken a position on whether or

not a Magistrate Judge can rule on a motion to remand an action

to state court. Some district courts have taken the position that

a motion to remand is not dispositive and thus may be determined

by a magistrate judge. See Bearden v. PNS Stores, Inc., 894 F.

Supp. 1418, 1419 n. 1 (D. Nev. 1995); Wyatt v. Walt Disney World

Co., 1999 WL 33117255 (W.D.N.C. July 26, 1999) (collecting

cases). 

The present motion involves a determination of the

availability of a federal forum. In an abundance of caution, the

Magistrate Judge will thus proceed by way of findings and

recommendations.

II. The Motion to Remand

Defendant United States removed this action on September 15,

2006. On September 21, 2006, Defendant United States moved to

Case 1:06-cv-01278-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

remand the action on the ground that when it removed the case, it

did not know that the action had previously been removed to this

Court as Case No. 1:05-01259-OWW-DLB; further, Defendant United

States and the parties had in that other federal proceeding

entered into a dispositive stipulation, and on the basis of the

stipulation, the action had been remanded to the Superior Court.

The stipulation had impliedly dismissed the United States from

the action. (Docs. 23 and 24, filed April 14, 2006.) Defendant

states that it no longer believes that it has grounds for

removal.

No party has filed any opposition to the motion to remand.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides:

A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect

other than subject matter jurisdiction must be made

within 30 days after the filing of the notice of

removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.

An order remanding the case may require payment of 

just costs and any actual expenses, including

attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.

A certified copy of the order of remand shall be

mailed by the clerk to the clerk to the clerk of 

the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed

with the case.

Given the timeliness of the motion, the lack of opposition, and

the concession that there are no grounds for removal of the

action, remand should be granted.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion for

remand BE GRANTED, the matter BE REMANDED to the Merced County

Superior Court and that pursuant to § 1447(c), and the Clerk of

the Court BE DIRECTED to mail to the clerk of the Merced County

Superior Court a copy of the order of remand.

Case 1:06-cv-01278-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within ten (10) court days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within five (5) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01278-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 5 of 5