Rubin v. Cannon
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-02474
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rubin v. Cannon, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero granted Cannon’s fee waiver but required her to justify federal jurisdiction or face possible remand.
Lady Benjamin Cannon must support the federal court’s jurisdiction and provide the required state-court documents; Sarah Rubin’s case may be remanded to state court if Cannon does not do so.
What happened
In Rubin v. Cannon, Lady Benjamin Cannon, representing herself, removed Sarah Rubin’s state-court case to federal court and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that request.
The court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case. Cannon asserted that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake, but she did not provide enough information to make the amount plausible. She also failed to attach Rubin’s complaint and other state-court documents required for removal.
The court ordered Cannon to explain by May 31, 2022 why the case should not be sent back to state court. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero stated that the case could be recommended for remand if Cannon did not respond or provide enough support, but the court had not yet ordered remand.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. Cannon · No. 3:22-cv-02474
- Charles Breyer
- May 9, 2022
Background
Lady Benjamin Cannon, proceeding without a lawyer, removed Sarah Rubin’s state-court action to federal court. Cannon applied to proceed without paying the usual filing fees. The court granted that application.
Federal jurisdiction and removal
A defendant may generally remove a state-court civil case only if the case could originally have been filed in federal court. Cannon appeared to rely on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Cannon asserted that she was a California citizen, Rubin was a New York citizen, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The court found Cannon’s explanation of the amount in controversy insufficiently plausible. Her notice did not include Rubin’s complaint, as required by the removal statute, and did not provide enough information about Rubin’s claim, the value of the rental unit apparently involved, or the settlement agreement Rubin purportedly sought to invalidate. The court therefore could not determine whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.
The court also explained that the federal “forum defendant rule” could provide a separate basis for remand because Cannon asserted that she was a citizen of California, the forum state. However, the court stated that this rule is procedural and cannot support a court-ordered remand on the court’s own initiative; Rubin would have to raise that objection.
Order
The court ordered Cannon to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Cannon had to respond by May 31, 2022, explain why the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and attach Rubin’s complaint and all other process, pleadings, and orders served on Cannon in the state-court case. If Cannon failed to respond or provide sufficient justification, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for remand. The opinion did not itself remand the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.