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

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona 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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Plaintiffs Cathay Bank and Robb Evans & Associates LLC’s motion for order permitting discovery of financial information as to Defendants Ace Hardware Corporation and John Mikulski, Inc. is DENIED. Judicial notice is taken of Defendant JMI, Inc.’s (“Defendant JMI”) Exhibits 1-2. (Evid. Code § 452.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, 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.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The court must take into account relevant factors, including the history of the case, the past conduct of counsel as it reflects upon the bona fides of their efforts, the nature and extent of the actual efforts expended, the nature of the discovery requested, its importance to the case, and the size and complexity of the case. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 428-37.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

Notice of the Conservatee's Death was filed by Conservator on 6/17/20. Status Report Hearing shall go off calendar. The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

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

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Plaintiff has filed a Judicial Council Form CIV-110 (“Request for Dismissal”) as to Does 1-100 without prejudice, yet seeks default judgment against Muniz, Dragon (named in lieu of Doe 11) and Zhang (named in lieu of Doe 12). 2. Plaintiff has failed to submit a summary of the case, as per Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1).) 3. The Declaration of Michael McGinley is devoid of any facts supporting his belief that the Equipment is in Dragon’s and Zhang’s possession. 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Is this as of the mailing of the Class Notice or as of the Claims Period? If there are multiple mailings, is the Class Period extended? Paragraph III. A states that “[u]pon submission of a Claim Form, AHM will reimburse Class Members for valid and eligible Out-Of-Pocket Costs incurred prior to the Class Notice Date.” Is this term really consistent with the Class Period definition?

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ACCOUNTING SET BY D14 ON 1/15/20

Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION AND FOR STLMT OF FIRST AND FINAL ACCT FILED ON 05/13/20 BY BABARA WAGNER

Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AMENDED PET’N FOR APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTING (MADISON)

File a verified declaration to clarify whether notice is needed or required to Veterans Administration, Director of State Hospitals and Director of Developmental Services 4. Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 5. File original financial account statement(s) as required by PrC § 2620(c) (2), (3) for LPL account at end of account period 6.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff 2000 Gold Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant RCMI Group (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for: Unlawful Detainer On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case; that day, the court deemed this instant case related to Case No. 19PSCV00905 and designated this instant case as the lead case. On November 22, 2019, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

ESTATE OF DOUGLAS S ROBINSON

File Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 2. Have a Notice of Petition to Administer Estate Form DE-121 and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. PrC § 8100; LR 7.151(e) 3. File a verified declaration to include relationships of all persons listed in Item # 8. PrC § 8002 4. File a verified declaration to address petition Item # 5.a.(1) or 5.a.(2) (whether decedent is survived by a spouse or no spouse) 5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: TRAILING: ELIZ ROSNER'S CREDITORS CLAIM SET BY DEPT.30

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement and in Response to Linda Rosner’s Frivolous Objection filed 8- 21-2020 by Nicolas Rosner and C. Jeff Brinton requests affirmative relief and must be calendared and noticed for relief to be considered. 4. Reply to Response to Objection of Linda Fuentes Rosner filed 9-18-2020 by Linda Fuentes Rosner.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FNL RPT ON WVR OF ACCT, FOR COMPENSATION, FINAL DIST

Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.300 2. Compliance with CRC 7.250 regarding any acts taken under IAEA w/notice of proposed action. (Specifics needed including date action was taken and date notice was given) 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify loss on sale. It appears loss on sale is $30,000.00. Expenses re: sale of real property are disbursements and should not be included in schedule of losses. 4. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT RE PET’N DET VALIDITY SET BY DEPT.30 (FILED

09/04/18 BY C.J.BRINTON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.