Krietz

(PS)(UD) Kim v. Krietz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 11, 20212:21-cv-00251California858 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SANG KIM and ROSA KIM, No. 2:21-cv-00251-TLN-JDP Plaintiffs, v. SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER SONIA KRIETZ, Defendant. 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sonia Krietz’s (“Defendant”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot, and the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs Sang Kim and Rosa Kim (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action for unlawful detainer against Defendant for possession of real property known as 140 Oak Rock Circle, Folsom, California 95630 (the “Property”). (ECF No. 1 at 8.) On February 8, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.