Le v. Satterberg

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 LUU DINH LE, CASE NO. C23-0473JLR 11 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 DANIEL T. SATTERBERG, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 16 James L. Robart: 17 Pro se Plaintiff Luu Dinh Le removed this action from the King County Superior 18 Court on March 28, 2023. (NOR (Dkt. # 1).) According to the King County Superior 19 Court’s docket, Mr. Le filed a “notice of filing petition for removal to U.S. District 20 Court” in that court on April 4, 2023. See Docket, Le v. Staterberg, Case No. 21 23-2-04586-6KNT (King Cnty. Super.) (capitalization omitted). Two days later, 22 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Le’s complaint in the King County Superior 1 Court. See id. The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss on May 4, 2023. See 2 id.

3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, only defendants may remove an action from state court 4 to district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also, e.g., Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 5 U.S. 574, 580 (1954) (noting that the plaintiff cannot remove the matter); Edwards v. 6 Edwards, No. 2:22-CV-08814-SB-JC, 2023 WL 172020, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023) 7 (remanding case because plaintiff could not remove his own action). Because Mr. Le is 8 the plaintiff in this action, his purported removal of his case to this court was improper.

9 Therefore, the court ORDERS the parties to file briefing, limited to 1,400 words, 10 regarding (1) whether this case should be dismissed or remanded in light of the improper 11 removal and (2) what effect, if any, the King County Superior Court’s dismissal order has 12 on this case. The parties must file their briefs by no later than May 19, 2023. 13 Filed and entered this 5th day of May, 2023.

14 RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court 15 s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah 16 Deputy Clerk

17 18 19 20 21 22