Gray v. Verbance
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-06967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gray v. Verbanec, Judge Cousins ordered the Grays to explain why their attempted removal should not be sent back to state court.
Stephen Gray and Mikyong “Gina” Gray, whose attempted removal of two state-court cases was questioned; the underlying cases could be returned to state court if the Grays did not respond and provide the required records.
What happened
In Gray v. Verbanec, Stephen Gray and Mikyong “Gina” Gray tried to move two cases from Santa Cruz County Superior Court to federal court. They cited the federal removal statute and other federal jurisdiction statutes.
The court identified two problems. First, federal law generally allows only a defendant in a state-court case to remove it, and the court said the Grays appeared to lack authority to remove cases they had filed. Second, the Grays had not provided the state-court complaints and other records needed to determine whether the cases raised federal questions.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered the Grays to explain by September 2, 2025, why the case should not be sent back to state court and to provide the missing records. The court said failure to respond would result in remand, but this order itself did not yet remand the case.
The detailed version
- Gray v. Verbance · No. 5:25-cv-06967
- Nathanael Cousins
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Stephen Gray and Mikyong “Gina” Gray filed a notice of removal seeking to move two cases from Santa Cruz County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and also mentioned the federal-question and supplemental-jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court identified two jurisdictional problems with the notice of removal.
First, § 1441 generally permits removal by “the defendant or the defendants.” The court explained that a plaintiff or cross-defendant generally cannot remove a case to federal court after choosing to file it in state court. The court stated that the Grays therefore appeared to lack legal grounds to remove their own cases. It also explained that citing the federal-question and supplemental-jurisdiction statutes did not itself create a right to remove.
Second, the court could not determine whether it had federal-question jurisdiction over the underlying state-court cases. Federal-question jurisdiction concerns cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court noted that the Grays had not filed the complaints or other records from the state-court cases, as required with a notice of removal. Without those materials, the court could not determine whether the cases qualified for federal-question jurisdiction.
Order
Because the notice of removal did not establish removal jurisdiction or subject-matter jurisdiction, the court ordered the Grays to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be remanded to state court. The Grays were required to file a response and the state-court records by September 2, 2025. The court stated that failure to do so would result in remand. The order did not itself remand the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.