Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 28, 2025

J.S. Held, LLC v. Malesardi

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:25-cv-06620
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In J.S. Held v. Malesardi, Judge Wicks transferred the improperly removed case to the Northern District of California because California was the proper federal district.

Who this affects

The order affects J.S. Held, LLC, Richard Avelar & Associates, Inc., Finkel Law Group RC., Gloria Malesardi, I FIX THINGS LLC, and the unnamed defendants because the case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of California.

What happened

J.S. Held, LLC, Richard Avelar & Associates, Inc., and Finkel Law Group RC. sued Gloria Malesardi, I FIX THINGS LLC, and unnamed defendants in California state court. Malesardi removed the case to the Eastern District of New York, claiming that federal diversity jurisdiction existed.

The court explained that removal to the wrong federal district did not eliminate federal subject-matter jurisdiction, but it was procedurally improper. Because the case had been filed in California, the proper federal district for removal was the Northern District of California.

Judge Wicks ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
J.S. Held, LLC v. Malesardi · No. 3:25-cv-06620
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
July 28, 2025

Background

J.S. Held, LLC, Richard Avelar & Associates, Inc., and Finkel Law Group RC. brought the action against Gloria Malesardi, I FIX THINGS LLC, and Does 1–10. The complaint was originally filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, as Case No. CGC-25-624477.

On July 24, 2025, Malesardi filed a notice removing the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She stated that diversity jurisdiction existed and that removal was proper.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which permits a defendant to remove a state-court civil action to the federal district covering the place where the state action is pending. The court explained that an improper removal to the wrong federal district is a venue problem, not a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction. In other words, the federal court retained jurisdiction even though the case had been removed to an incorrect district.

Because the original case was filed in San Francisco County, the Northern District of California was the federal district that covered the location of the state-court action. The court therefore concluded that removal to the Eastern District of New York was improper and that transfer to the Northern District of California was the appropriate remedy.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order transferred the case; it did not dismiss the action, remand it to state court, or decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.