Nathaniel v. Andina Property, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-00319
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Nathaniel v. Andina Property, LLC, Judge Spero ordered Nathaniel to explain why the removed case should not be dismissed or sent back for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Rodney Nathaniel, the parties to the state-court action, and Andina Property, LLC, because the court questioned whether the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the removed case.
What happened
Rodney Nathaniel v. Andina Property, LLC began when Nathaniel tried to move a San Francisco Superior Court case to federal court. The state case was captioned Andina Property LLC v. Laura Elizabeth, Laura Aleta Elizabeth, and Does 1-10.
Nathaniel did not include the state-court complaint or other required court papers with his removal notice. Without those materials, the court could not determine whether the case raised a federal question or met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. It also was unclear whether Nathaniel was a defendant in the state case.
The court ordered Nathaniel to file a written response of no more than five pages and provide the state-court complaint by February 28, 2020. Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed or sent back to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Nathaniel v. Andina Property, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-00319
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
Rodney Nathaniel filed a notice of removal seeking to move a case from San Francisco Superior Court to the federal court. The state-court case was captioned Andina Property LLC v. Laura Elizabeth (sued as Laura Fox), Laura Aleta Elizabeth (sued as Laura Fox aka Beth Fox), and Does 1-10.
Problems with the Removal Notice
Federal law requires a defendant removing a state-court action to file the removal notice in the appropriate federal district court and include copies of the process, pleadings, and orders served in the state case. Nathaniel did not provide the state-court complaint or any other state-court process, pleadings, or orders.
Because the complaint was missing, the court could not determine whether the case presented a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court also could not determine whether the parties met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, including the parties' citizenship and the amount in dispute. The court noted that it was not clear whether Nathaniel was a defendant in the state case he was attempting to remove.
Order
The court ordered Nathaniel to show cause—in other words, to explain—why the case should not be dismissed or sent back to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. It ordered him to file a written response of no more than five pages, together with a copy of the state-court complaint, by February 28, 2020. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or remanded at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.