1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAVIS THOMPSON, Case No. 23-cv-1300-BAS-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 v. STATE COURT

14 MEADOWBROOK HOUSING

PARTNERS, LP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17

18 Plaintiff Mavis Thompson filed an action in San Diego Superior Court on June 28, 19 2023, appearing to allege Defendant Meadowbrook Housing Partners unlawfully evicted 20 her from her rental unit. (ECF No. 1-3.) On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff removed her action to 21 federal court and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. But the federal removal statute, 28

(a), does not confer the party who initiates an action in state court with the 23 right to thereafter remove it to federal court.

(a) (an action “may be 24 removed by “defendant or the defendants” (emphasis added); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. 25 Stude,

(“Here, the railroad is the plaintiff under

(a) . . 26 . and cannot remove”). This is true even if that party’s opponent later filed a cross- 27 complaint against the plaintiff, which does not appear to be the case here. See, e.g., 28 Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue,

(1st Cir. 1989) (“Title

|| 1446 authorizes removal only by defendants and only on the basis of claims brought against 2 ||them and not on the basis of counterclaims asserted by them. Plaintiffs cannot remove, 3 |}even when they are in the position of a defendant with regard to a counterclaim asserted 4 || against them.’’). 5 Therefore, the Court REMANDS sua sponte the case to San Diego Superior Court. 6 || The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 8 || DATED: August 3, 2023 Lin A (Ayphan 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28