Wick v. Wactor et.al.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-05283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wick v. Wactor, Judge Corley ordered Wactor to explain or withdraw his apparently improper removal of Wick’s state-law case.
Jon K. Wactor must explain the basis for removal or withdraw his notice by July 22, 2025; the order affects the federal court’s continued jurisdiction over William D. Wick’s state-law case.
What happened
William D. Wick’s state-law case against Jon K. Wactor was filed in state court in 2023 and later removed to federal court by Wactor based on diversity jurisdiction.
The court identified several apparent problems: removal occurred more than one year after the case began, the parties were California citizens when the case was filed, and Wactor was the state-court petitioner rather than a defendant. The court also found no support for treating Wick’s motion as making Wactor a defendant or for switching the parties’ sides.
The court did not yet remand the case. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered Wactor to show by July 22, 2025, why federal removal jurisdiction exists or to withdraw the removal notice by that date.
The detailed version
- Wick v. Wactor et.al. · No. 3:25-cv-05283
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 14, 2025
Background
Jon K. Wactor removed a state-law case involving William D. Wick to federal court. Wactor relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states. The state-court action was filed in 2023 and involved Wactor’s petition to confirm an arbitration award.
Problems Identified with Removal
The court identified several apparent defects in the notice of removal:
- Federal law generally bars removal based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the action began. Because the state-court action began in 2023, the court stated that the 2025 removal appeared untimely. - Wactor argued that diversity jurisdiction arose when he moved to New Mexico in February 2025. The court explained that party citizenship is determined when the complaint is filed. The court stated that both Wactor and Wick were California citizens when the case was filed in 2023. - The removal statute allows only a defendant to remove a case. Wactor was the petitioner seeking confirmation of an arbitration award in the state-court complaint. The court said Wactor provided no authority for treating Wick’s motion as making Wactor a defendant who could remove the case later. - The court also rejected, at this stage, Wactor’s apparent effort to switch sides in the case for federal-jurisdiction purposes. Under Ninth Circuit law, parties may be realigned based on whose interests coincide regarding the main dispute. The court stated that no other party’s interests coincided with Wactor’s and that it knew of no law supporting jurisdiction in these circumstances.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that the case appeared to have been improperly removed. It ordered Wactor, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, to show cause by July 22, 2025, why the federal court has removal jurisdiction. If removal jurisdiction could not be established, the court directed Wactor to withdraw the notice of removal by that date.
The order itself did not remand the case. It required Wactor either to justify removal or withdraw the notice. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.