Opinion
No C 10-2902 VRW.
September 15, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this foreclosure-related matter in state court in October 2009. Doc #1 at 1. In July 2010, plaintiffs removed the action. Id.
It is well-established "that the plaintiff[s], who chose the forum, [are] bound by that choice and may not remove the case."Scott v Communications Svcs, Inc, 762 F Supp 147, 149-50 (SD Tex 1991) (citing Shamrock Oil Gas Corp v Sheets, 313 US 100, 107-09 (1941); Tindle v Ledbetter, 627 F Supp 406, 407 (MD La 1986); Estate of Spragins v Citizens National Bank of Evansville, 563 F Supp 424, 426 (ND Miss 1983); Southland Corp v Estridge, 456 F Supp 1296, 1298, 1300-01 (CD Cal 1978); Ford Motor Credit Co v Liles, 399 F Supp 1282, 1284 (WD Okla 1975); Coditron Corp v AFA Protective Systems, Inc, 392 F Supp 158, 161 (SDNY 1975); Mohawk Rubber Co v Terrell, 13 F2d 266, 266 (WD Mo 1926)). In short, 28 USC § 1441 provides defendants — not plaintiffs — with the option of removing certain complaints filed in state court to federal court. Because plaintiffs chose to file their complaint in state court, they must pursue their claims there.
The court therefore REMANDS this action to Alameda County superior court. The clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all motions and to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.