Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07139/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07139-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ranjit Kaur Singhru
Plaintiff
Mitchel Smith
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RANJIT KAUR SINGHRU,

Plaintiff,

v.

MITCHEL SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07139-PJH 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

Pro se defendant Mitchel Smith removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 

from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Dkt. 1. Smith did not 

attach the underlying complaint to his notice of removal. Smith also filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 2. On January 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ryu 

issued an order requiring Smith to file a copy of the state court complaint by February 1, 

2019. Dkt. 6. Smith still has not filed a copy of the state court complaint. Instead, on 

February 1, 2019, Smith filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, appearing to state that he 

“mistakenly” filed suit against the person who purchased his house rather than a bank 

associated with the home’s mortgage. Dkt. 8. But Smith cannot unilaterally dismiss an 

action in which he is the removing defendant.

On February 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ryu issued a report and 

recommendation recommending that the IFP application be granted and that the action 

be remanded to the Contra County Superior Court. Dkt. 10. No party objected to the 

report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. The court finds the report 

correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Specifically, Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 15 Filed 03/15/19 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

Ryu accurately explained why the court lacks any basis for finding that it has subject 

matter jurisdiction over the action.

Judge Ryu explained that the underlying state court case appeared to be “an 

unlawful detainer action by Mr. Singhru against Mr. Smith,” which would be “governed by 

state law.” Id. at 2–3. Smith’s notice of removal primarily concerns the Bank of New 

York Mellon—which is not a party to this action—but it does not contain any allegations 

relating to Singhru, the underlying state court case, or the basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction.

Given the record before the court, there appears to be no basis to exercise subject 

matter jurisdiction over the controversy between Singhru and Smith. As such, this court 

must remand the action to state court. See Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 

831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

Defendant’s IFP application is GRANTED. However, this action is hereby 

REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2019

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07139-PJH Document 15 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2