764 Fed.Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-56765, Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc.

Docket Nº:17-56765
Citation:764 Fed.Appx. 583
Party Name:Lisa WONG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KRACKSMITH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Boschal Lee; et al., Defendants, v. William Stocker, Movant-Appellant.
Attorney:Shanon K. Quinley, Law Offices of Shanon K. Quinley, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellee William Stocker, Law Offices of William Stocker, San Marino, CA, for Defendant - Appellant William Stocker, Law Offices of William Stocker, San Marino, CA, for Movant - Appellant
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 19, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 583

764 Fed.Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2019)

Lisa WONG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KRACKSMITH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Boschal Lee; et al., Defendants,

v.

William Stocker, Movant-Appellant.

No. 17-56765

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 19, 2019

Submitted March 12, 2019 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Shanon K. Quinley, Law Offices of Shanon K. Quinley, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff - Appellee

William Stocker, Law Offices of William Stocker, San Marino, CA, for Defendant - Appellant

William Stocker, Law Offices of William Stocker, San Marino, CA, for Movant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05978-SVW-E

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Page 584

MEMORANDUM[**]

Appellants Kracksmith, Inc., and William Stocker, its attorney in this action, appeal from the district court’s order remanding plaintiff’s action to California state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a removed case. Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly remanded the action to state court because appellants failed to establish that the state court could not enforce their rights. See id. at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) ). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, appellants have not identified a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state court to ignore their federal civil rights. To the extent that defendants argue that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order based on § 1441); Patel, 446 F.3d at 998.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sua sponte awarding...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP