Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Vasquez
Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez; Hennepin County; the City of Edina; all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14-14103
- Douglas Micko
- 0:25-cv-03390
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Simonetti v. Vasquez, Magistrate Judge Micko recommends sending the case back to state court because defendant Vasquez refused to consent to removal.
Plaintiffs Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota, who filed suit against Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and Edina Police Officers, will have their case returned to Minnesota state court. The City of Edina's attempt to litigate in federal court is recommended to be rejected.
What happened
In Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Vasquez, Hennepin County, City of Edina, and Edina Police Officers, the City of Edina removed the case from Minnesota state court to federal court on August 27, 2025. The City acknowledged in its removal notice that defendant Jacklyn Vasquez had not given affirmative consent to the removal, which raised questions about whether the removal was proper. The court then ordered the City to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court, and on September 12, 2025, the City confirmed that Vasquez actively refused to consent.
Federal law requires that when a case is moved from state to federal court, all defendants who have been served must agree to that move — a requirement known as the rule of unanimity. If even one served defendant withholds consent, the removal is defective and the federal court lacks the authority to hear the case. Here, Vasquez's refusal to consent meant this requirement was not met.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on September 17, 2025, recommending that the case be sent back (remanded) to state court. This is a recommendation, not a final order; the parties have 14 days to file written objections with the District Court after being served with a copy of the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Vasquez · No. 0:25-cv-03390
- Douglas L. Micko
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota filed suit in Minnesota state court against Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14-14103. On August 27, 2025, Defendant City of Edina filed a Notice of Removal, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In its notice, the City represented that Hennepin County had affirmatively consented to removal, but acknowledged in a footnote that Defendant Vasquez had not provided affirmative consent. The City did not obtain or file Vasquez's written consent before removing.
Show-Cause Proceeding
Because of the unresolved consent issue, the Court issued an order requiring the City of Edina to show cause why the action should not be remanded to state court. On September 12, 2025, the City filed a letter confirming that Vasquez had affirmatively stated she does not consent to removal.
Legal Standards
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a federal court must remand a case if a defect in the removal procedure makes removal improper. The party seeking to keep the case in federal court bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction is proper. Any doubt about jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. In re Bus. Men's Assurance Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993); Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).
The rule of unanimity, applied by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court covering Minnesota), requires that all defendants join in — or timely and unequivocally consent to — a notice of removal. Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753, 754 n.2 (8th Cir. 2001). While every defendant need not sign the notice itself, each served defendant must provide some written indication of actual consent. Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch. Dist., 674 F.3d 927, 932 (8th Cir. 2012).
Analysis and Recommendation
Because Defendant Jacklyn Vasquez does not consent to removal, the rule of unanimity is not satisfied. The court therefore concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction (the authority to hear this type of dispute) and recommends remand to state court.
Procedural Posture
This document is a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Micko, not a final order. It has been referred to the assigned District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party wishing to challenge this recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy. Opposing parties then have an additional 14 days to respond to those objections. The recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.