Chen v. Stuetzel
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-04187
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chen v. Stuetzel, Judge Cousins ordered Stuetzel to explain removal defects or risk remand to state court.
Ezra Stuetzel must provide the missing information and state-court filings by June 9, 2025, or the case may be remanded to state court. Hanlu Chen may respond by June 16, 2025. The order leaves the removal and federal jurisdiction unresolved for now.
What happened
In Chen v. Stuetzel, self-represented defendant Ezra Stuetzel moved an eviction case from Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court.
Judge Cousins found that Stuetzel had not provided required state-court filings, the service date needed to assess whether removal was timely, or enough information to determine federal jurisdiction. Stuetzel claimed the case involved the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, but the court said a defendant’s defense or counterclaim generally cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Stuetzel to file a written explanation or revised removal notice with the missing information by June 9, 2025. Hanlu Chen could respond by June 16, 2025. The court warned that failing to respond could result in remand to state court, but it did not yet order remand.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Stuetzel · No. 5:25-cv-04187
- Nathanael Cousins
- May 19, 2025
Background
Self-represented defendant Ezra Stuetzel filed a notice of removal seeking to move an eviction action brought by Hanlu Chen in Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court.
Problems with the Notice of Removal
The court identified several deficiencies:
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a removing defendant must provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal and copies of the state-court process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant. Stuetzel did not attach the state-court filings, including Chen’s complaint and any answer Stuetzel filed. - The missing filings and missing service information prevented the court from determining whether removal was timely. The removal statute generally requires removal within 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading through service or service of summons. Stuetzel’s notice did not clearly state when he was served with the summons or complaint. - The court could not determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal courts may hear a removed case only if they would have had original jurisdiction over it. Stuetzel asserted federal-question jurisdiction based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, but the court could not tell whether Chen’s complaint actually asserted claims under those laws or whether Stuetzel was invoking them in an answer or counterclaim. The court explained that a federal question ordinarily must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense or counterclaim generally is insufficient.
Order
The court ordered Stuetzel to file a written statement or revised notice of removal by June 9, 2025, addressing the identified issues and providing the state-court filings. The filing was required to show that removal was timely and that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court warned that failure to do so may result in remand to state court and noted that an order of remand may require payment of just costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Chen could file a response by June 16, 2025, if desired. The order did not itself remand the case or decide whether federal jurisdiction existed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.