Azar v. Lyublina
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-03434
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Azar v. Lyublina, Judge Martinez-Olguin granted remand because the removing defendant did not show that all defendants consented.
The order affected the removed case by returning it from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the San Francisco Superior Court. It directly addressed the motion filed by Mariya Lyublina and Claudio A. Bluer and the removal by Dean Earl Visso.
What happened
Azar v. Lyublina began as a property-related dispute filed in state court and was later removed to federal court by Dean Earl Visso. Mariya Lyublina and Claudio A. Bluer asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
They argued that removal was improper because Visso did not obtain the required consent of all defendants. The opinion states that the removal notice did not say that the other defendants had consented, and no party opposed the motion to remand.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the motion to remand and directed the Clerk to return the case to the San Francisco Superior Court.
The detailed version
- Azar v. Lyublina · No. 3:24-cv-03434
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 2, 2024
Background
The action was originally filed in state court on April 16, 2021, and concerned a property-related dispute. Dean Earl Visso removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 6, 2024. Mariya Lyublina and Claudio A. Bluer moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Legal standard
In a case with multiple defendants, all defendants generally must join in the request for removal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a party may ask the federal court to remand a case because of a defect in the removal process other than lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has held that failing to obtain the consent of all defendants is such a defect.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Visso’s notice of removal did not state whether he had obtained consent from the remaining defendants. The request for remand also undermined any claim that he had obtained that consent. Neither Visso nor any other party filed an opposition to the motion.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to remand the matter to the San Francisco Superior Court. The opinion was signed by United States District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.