Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/110371783/Gov-uscourts-cacd-542336-34-0
Timestamp: 2015-11-28 00:40:58
Document Index: 219767581

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1441', '§ 1441', '§ 1446', '§ 1441', '§ 1441', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 5']

P. 1Gov.uscourts.cacd.542336.34.0Gov.uscourts.cacd.542336.34.05.0|Views: 1,208|Likes: 0Published by Mike DunfordMore info:Published by: Mike Dunford on Oct 18, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/110371783/Gov-uscourts-cacd-542336-34-008/29/2014pdftextoriginalCase 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN Document 34Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:281
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 12-1507-DOC (ANx) Title: KEITH JUDD ET AL. V. BARACK OBAMA ET AL. Date: October 17, 2012
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Julie Barrera Courtroom Clerk
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS (DKTS. 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 33) AS MOOT Before the Court is a lawsuit that eight Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) brought against President Barack Obama and twenty-eight other Defendants. The gist of the lawsuit, to the extent a short description can capture its claims, is that the President is not a natural born citizen; that massive voter fraud has been and will be perpetrated; that officials in government are involved in those two conspiracies; and that various officials and journalists, along with participating in those conspiracies, have also separately violated the rights of the Plaintiffs through defamation and other actions appearing to sound in tort. Defendants include local, state, and national officials, journalists, media outlets, the Postmaster General, and a federal judge. Among the Plaintiffs is Orly Taitz, an attorney who is also the group’s counsel. Ms. Taitz has brought previous lawsuits with some similarity to the present case. See, e.g., Drake v. Obama, 654 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs removed this case from State Superior Court themselves. Response To Order Of The Court (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). That fact is fatal to this Court’s jurisdiction, and thus the Court will sua sponte dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 12-1507-DOC (ANx) Date: October 17, 2012 Page 2
I. Facts On September 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, titled “First Amended Complaint,” with fourteen causes of action and a request for class action certification. Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs’ counsel did not file an electronic form of the claim-initiating document, as required by Local Rule 3-2. Order Requiring Plaintiffs To File An Electronic Copy (Dkt. 6). In response to this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed a seven-page Notice Of Removal that was filed in Superior Court. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1). 1 This case’s docket still has no electronic copy of the Complaint.2 The Notice Of Removal makes clear that Plaintiffs removed the action from state court. Id. at 6 (“Plaintiffs hereby remove this action from the Superior Court of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.”). II. Legal Standard Removal of a case from state to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in pertinent part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removing defendant must file a notice of removal in the appropriate United States District Court, together with all
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 12-1507-DOC (ANx) Date: October 17, 2012 Page 3
process, pleadings, and orders served upon the defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Only a defendant may remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)). If a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, “the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). III. Analysis The “lack of jurisdiction is so fundamental a defect that the rule permits a judge to recognize it sua sponte at any time.” Bernstein v. Universal Pictures, Inc., 517 F.2d 976, 979 (2d Cir. 1975). Among the reasons for this sound rule is that “[j]udicial resources are precious, particularly in view of the courts' steadily burgeoning caseload, and they should not be dissipated in futile proceedings.” Id. The same could be said of the resources of the many government officials sued in this case—they need not spend taxpayer money to defend a proceeding if that proceeding is futile. Here, Plaintiffs’ own filings make clear that they removed this case themselves. (Dkt. 8, Ex. 1 at 6). That attempt at removal cannot establish this Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d at 686 (citing Shamrock Oil v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100). Thus, for the above reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case. All pending Motions (Dkts. 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 33) are DENIED AS MOOT, and the corresponding hearings are hereby vacated. The Clerk shall serve this order on all parties.
More From This UserOrly's Snifflebola HearingMike DunfordOrly's Snifflebola HearingScan 0001Mike DunfordScan 0001Scan 0006Mike DunfordScan 0006Bundy-1998-DNvMike DunfordBundy-1998-DNv"Complaint" in Taitz v. I Don't Know Who.Mike Dunford"Complaint" in Taitz v. I Don't Know Who.Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 10 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 10 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 9 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 9 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 8 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 8 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 7 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 7 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 6 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 6 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 5 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 5 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 4 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 4 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 3 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 3 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 2 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 2 of 10)Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 1 of 10)Mike DunfordGames Workshop v. Chapterhouse (N.D. Ill) Trial Transcript (Day 1 of 10)Mont._State-v-District-Court-13th-Judicial_Grant-of-WritMike DunfordMont._State-v-District-Court-13th-Judicial_Grant-of-WritMont._State-v-District-Court-13th-Judicial_Pet-for-WritMike DunfordMont._State-v-District-Court-13th-Judicial_Pet-for-WritGW-v-Chapterhouse Joint report on judgmentMike DunfordGW-v-Chapterhouse Joint report on judgmentGW-v-Chapterhouse GW bill of costsMike DunfordGW-v-Chapterhouse GW bill of costsGW-v-Chapterhouse GW Motion for CostsMike DunfordGW-v-Chapterhouse GW Motion for CostsGW-v-Chapterhouse Chapterhouse Bill of CostsMike DunfordGW-v-Chapterhouse Chapterhouse Bill of Costsgov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.414.0Mike Dunfordgov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.414.0Chapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 3. Mike DunfordChapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 3. Chapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 4. Mike DunfordChapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 4. Chapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 5. Mike DunfordChapterhouse vs Games Workshop. Judgment part 5. Download and print this documentRead and print without adsDownload to keep your versionEdit, email or read offlineChoose a format:.PDF.TXTDownload
RecommendedArticle II Super PAC, Washington Times Daily and Weekly Edition, 8-13-2012Article II Super PACArticle II Super PAC, Washington Times Daily and Weekly Edition, 8-13-2012, h...Jordan v Reed - Obama's Identity Document Fraud - Washington State Supreme Court - 9/18/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsJordan v Reed - Obama's Identity Document Fraud - Washington State Supreme Co...Herb Titus, Esq. Corrects Bret Baier of Fox News on Natural Born Citizen Definition, 5-1-2012Article II Super PACHerb Titus, Esq. Corrects Bret Baier of Fox News on Natural Born Citizen Defi...Strunk: Complaint of attempt to commit a crime by NY Public Officers in the 2012 Electoral College - 11/9/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsStrunk: Complaint of attempt to commit a crime by NY Public Officers in the 2...Sibley v Alexander - Response To Motion To Stay Discovery - Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/25/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsSibley v Alexander - Response To Motion To Stay Discovery - Obama Electoral C...Previous|NextPage 1 of 2Similar to Judd v Obama - Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject...Article II Super PAC, Washington Times Daily and Weekly Edition, 8-13-2012Article II Super PACArticle II Super PAC, Washington Times Daily and Weekly Edition, 8-13-2012Jordan v Reed - Obama's Identity Document Fraud - Washington State Supreme Court - 9/18/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsJordan v Reed - Obama's Identity Document Fraud - Washington State Supreme Court - 9/18/2012Herb Titus, Esq. Corrects Bret Baier of Fox News on Natural Born Citizen Definition, 5-1-2012Article II Super PACHerb Titus, Esq. Corrects Bret Baier of Fox News on Natural Born Citizen Definition, 5-1-2012Strunk: Complaint of attempt to commit a crime by NY Public Officers in the 2012 Electoral College - 11/9/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsStrunkSibley v Alexander - Response To Motion To Stay Discovery - Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/25/2012ObamaRelease YourRecordsSibley v Alexander - Response To Motion To Stay Discovery - Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/25/2012