Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00632/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 19-cv-00632 DMS (KSC)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT W. KRICKHAHN and 

MARCIA A. KRICKHAHN, trustees 

of the Krickhahn Family Trust Dated 

March 6, 1007,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 19-cv-00632 DMS (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

REMAND

v.

DAWN M. DEMUTH; TERRY C. 

DEMUTH; JAYNE L. MEYERS; 

and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Hebert Krickhahn and Marcia 

Krickhahn’s motion to remand. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this motion in 

response to Defendant Terry Demuth’s second notice of removal of Plaintiffs’

unlawful detainer action filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. (See RJN

Ex. 1, ROA No. 1.)1 The Court has already issued an order remanding this action 

 

1

 The Court takes judicial notice of the Register of Actions for the superior court 

case at issue, Herbert W. Krickhahn Trustee of the Krickhahn Family Trust Dated 

March 6, 1997 v. Demuth, Case No. 37-2018-00057291-CL-UD-CTL. See Reyn’s 

Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (a court 

Case 3:19-cv-00632-DMS-KSC Document 5 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 19-cv-00632 DMS (KSC)

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

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Krickhahn et al v. Demuth et al, 

Case No. 19-cv-00085-DMS-KSC, ECF No. 7.) Despite the Court’s prior order, 

Defendant filed another notice of removal based on the same meritless grounds. 

Moreover, just like with his first removal, Defendant filed his second notice of 

removal on the eve of the scheduled trial date, allowing him to delay trial and remain 

on the property rent-free during this delay. (See RJN Ex. 1, ROA No. 57.)

For the reasons discussed in the prior order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

motion to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also

GRANTS Plaintiffs just cost and actual expenses incurred as a result of Defendant’s 

unsubstantial removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and ORDERS Defendant not to 

remove this action again, unless Plaintiffs amend the complaint to add a claim arising 

under federal law. Defendant is warned that any further removals in violation 

of this order are punishable by sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2019

 

may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record). 

Case 3:19-cv-00632-DMS-KSC Document 5 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2