1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 XIAOQING XIAO, Case No. 21-cv-05866-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 9 v. STATE COURT

10 RANDALL FORSHEY, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is defendants Randall Forshey and Sharon Forshey's Notice of 14 Removal, filed July 30, 2021. Having read and considered the Notice of Removal, the 15 Court rules as follows. 16 Prior to the filing of the instant Notice of Removal, the above-titled action, in which 17 plaintiff Xiaoqing Xiao asserts a single claim against defendants for unlawful detainer, 18 was removed by defendants and thereafter was remanded by the Court. Specifically, 19 defendants, on April 7, 2021, filed a Notice of Removal, and the Court, by order filed June 20 8, 2021, remanded the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 21 The Notice of Removal filed July 30, 2021, is identical to the Notice of Removal 22 filed April 7, 2021. As the grounds asserted in the first Notice of Removal failed to 23 identify any basis for federal jurisdiction, the identical grounds asserted in the second 24 Notice of Removal likewise fail to identify any such basis. Consequently, the case, once 25 again, will be remanded. See

(c) (providing "[i]f at any time before final 26 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 27 be remanded"); Maniar v. FDIC,

(9th Cir. 1992) (finding § 1447(c) 1 Accordingly, the above-tiled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of 2 || the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: August 11, 2021 □ . INE M. CHESNEY 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28