What is a Notice of Removal?

A notice of removal initiates the process of transferring a civil action from a state court to a federal court. The United States Code imposes several requirements that must be met for removing a case from state court to federal court.

“A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). All defendants subject to state court jurisdiction must consent to removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986); Bonner v. Fuji Photo Film, 461 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Watanabe v. Lankford, 684 F.Supp.2d 1210 (D. Haw. 2010); Myer v. Nitetrain Coach Co., Inc., 459 F.Supp.2d 1074 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

“Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). “A certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the clerk to the clerk of the State court. The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

“[T]he state court's jurisdiction is suspended when the defendant seeking removal gives notice to the state court clerk, and it is reacquired when the district court clerk gives notice to the state court clerk in the form of a certified copy of the remand order.” Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 348, 356; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 670, 676. Although it may not “proceed” with the case during the period of the removal, the superior court may engage in ministerial or clerical actions which do not affect the merits of the action. Lawrence v. Chancery Ct. of Tenn. (6th Cir. 1999) 188 F.3d 687; Pebble Creek Homes, LLC v. Upstream Images, LLC (D. Utah 2007) 547 F.Supp.2d 1214.

Useful Rulings on Notice of Removal

Recent Rulings on Notice of Removal

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As a preliminary matter, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ and the City’s requests for judicial notice; OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections to the Engstrom Declaration; and SUSTAINS objection nos. 1, 5, 7 and 9 to the Belmar Declaration and OVERRULES all remaining objections. GENERAL LAW A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not issue. (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Specifically, MaryJane is a plaintiff as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranties. (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Indemnity following the filing of Turner’s Motion.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

LINFIELD presiding in DEPT. 34 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. ANALYSIS Yes (2/26/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

LINFIELD presiding in DEPT. 34 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Clerk to give notice _____________________________ Dennis J. Landin, Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

E of the Glendale Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court. This minute order serves as the order of the Court.PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

The Motion is unopposed and asserts that Defendants: (1) have not asserted any meritorious affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action; and (2) have not offered any evidence to counter Plaintiff’s claims. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

Proof of mailing Inventory and Appraisal to Inheritance Funding Company, Inc., who requested special notice, or waiver of notice. PrC § 1202 2. Spouse did not file an election to subject any inheritance to formal administration so therefore court lacks jurisdiction to order distribution to spouse or fees thereon. Need petition (may be ex parte) showing good cause for allowing late election, and order.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

FILED ON 08/19/20 BY JAMES A WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NO...

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Proof of mailing a copy of the Petition for Probate to all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.151(e) 3. Corrected proof of mailing to verify Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-1-2020. 4. Proof of mailing to Terese Merrell, issue of Mark Merrell, trustee of trust and trust beneficiaries or waivers of notice. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) ALFRED LEWIS MERRELL MARK ALFRED MERRELL KEVIN M CORBETT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 personally served on Dontray and file Proof of Service or (2) have Dontray sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211) 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES LLC VS MICHAEL D. GARRIS

The Court orders that Petitioner submit a proposed judgment within ten (10) days of the date of issuance of this Order. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

Demurrer to FAC A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.