Gengler v. Super.
Filed 3/26/13 Gengler v. Super. Ct. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
RONALD JOSEPH GENGLER et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, OP,
Real
Party in Interest.
E057841
(Super.Ct.No.
INC1207562)
OPINION
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of prohibition.
David E. Gregory, Temporary judge.
(Pursuant to Cal. Const.,
art. VI, § 21.) Petition
granted.
Gordon
& Doner and Scott L. Adkins for Petitioners.
No
appearance for Respondent.
No
appearance for Real Party in Interest.
In
this matter, we have reviewed the petition and considered the record. Although invited to do so, real party in
interest has not filed a response. We
have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of
settled principles of law, and that an alternative writ would add nothing to
the presentation already made and would cause undue delay in resolving this
matter. We therefore issue a peremptory
writ in the first instance. (
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
DISCUSSION
After
a civil action is removed to federal
court, “the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is
remanded.†(28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).) In Sugimoto
v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 165, the superior
court dismissed the action when it had been removed to federal court in order
to clear its docket. The appellate court
held the dismissal was improper because the superior court lacked jurisdiction
to do anything other than stay the action pending the resolution of the federal
case. (Id. at p. 168.)
In
this case, the trial court has continued to calendar hearings after being
advised of the removal of this matter and, apparently, even after we issued a
temporary stay. The trial court erred in
taking these actions because it lacks jurisdiction to do anything other than to
stay the action. Accordingly, we grant
the petition for writ of mandate.
DISPOSITION
Let
a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside
County to immediately stay the action and cease calendaring any hearings or
taking any action in this matter unless the federal court orders a remand.
Petitioner
is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies
served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with
proof of service on all parties.
The
parties are to bear their own costs.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
