(UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter

E.D. California

(UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter

DecidedOctober 5, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-02170

StatusUnknown

This text of (UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter ((UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JMK Investments, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02170-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Isaiah Porter, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 18 | Sacramento. Defendant has not established that the state court could not enforce his rights. See 19 | U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Azam, 582 F. App’x 710 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (affirming remand 20 | for lack of removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)); Patel v. Del Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 21 | 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (summarizing and applying relevant legal test), abrogated on other 22 | grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: October 5, 2023. / □ 25 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JMK Investments, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02170-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Isaiah Porter, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 18 | Sacramento. Defendant has not established that the state court could not enforce his rights. See 19 | U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Azam, 582 F. App’x 710 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (affirming remand 20 | for lack of removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)); Patel v. Del Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 21 | 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (summarizing and applying relevant legal test), abrogated on other 22 | grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: October 5, 2023. / □ 25 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(UD)(PS) JMK Investments, Inc. v. Porter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/udps-jmk-investments-inc-v-porter-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack