Case Name: Jeanette BARHAM; Eileen Barham, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EDWARDS THEATERS INC; Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Citations: 138 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 03-56364; D.C. No. CV-03-00801-TJW
Parties: Jeanette BARHAM; Eileen Barham, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. EDWARDS THEATERS INC; Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
Jeanette BARHAM; Eileen Barham, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. EDWARDS THEATERS INC; Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 03-56364.
D.C. No. CV-03-00801-TJW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2005.
Decided May 19, 2005.
Mark Dee Potter, Center for Disability Access, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Laura M. Franze, Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hon. Leonard B. Sand, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edwards Theaters appeals the district court's sua sponte order remanding this action to California state court. We vacate the order and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
According to Kelton Arms Condo., Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1191-92 (9th Cir.2003), we have jurisdiction to review orders such as this that remand a case to state court on non-jurisdictional grounds. Kelton Arms, which was decided after the district court's order in this case, held that a dis trict court may not remand sua sponte because of non-jurisdietional procedural defects in the removal process. Id. at 1198. Here, unlike Kelton Arms, the district court did give specific reasons for its decision to remand, and it did so after notifying the parties and hearing from defendant Edwards; but the fact remains that the plaintiff did not register a motion to remand or object to the matter remaining in federal court. Non-jurisdictional defects in removal may be waived or forfeited. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir.1995). Thus, without a motion to remand from the plaintiff, the district court's order was sua sponte and improper under Kelton Arms.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.