First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:23-cv-05702
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In First and Rosemary Senior Housing v. Pierre, Judge Cousins ordered Pierre to explain removal defects, complete his fee-waiver application, and why the case should return to state court.
George Pierre must respond by December 18, 2023, complete his fee-waiver application, and address the apparent defects in removal. The case remained subject to possible remand to state court; the opinion did not finally remand it.
What happened
First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre concerns Defendant George Pierre’s removal of a state-court case to federal court. The court said Pierre’s notice showed that he filed for removal more than 30 days after receiving the state-court complaint.
The court also said Pierre had not shown a valid basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction because he relied only on possible federal defenses. In addition, his application to proceed without paying filing fees was incomplete because he answered only part of the first question.
The court ordered Pierre to explain in writing by December 18, 2023, why the case should not be sent back to state court and to file a complete fee-waiver application. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins did not enter a final remand order in this opinion.
The detailed version
- First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre · No. 5:23-cv-05702
- Nathanael Cousins
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP is the plaintiff, and George Pierre is the defendant. Pierre removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Pierre to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court.
Reasons for the Order
The court identified two apparent problems with removal. First, federal law generally requires a defendant to file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving the initial pleading. Pierre stated that he received notice of the state-court action on September 29, 2023, but the notice of removal was filed on November 6, 2023. The court therefore concluded that removal appeared untimely. It noted that Pierre’s signature was dated October 27, but the notice and civil cover sheet were filed on November 6.
Second, the court found that subject-matter jurisdiction was not established. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over federal questions and disputes meeting the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The court explained that a federal defense generally does not create federal-question jurisdiction. Because Pierre relied only on potential federal defenses, the court found that he had not provided a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction.
The court also found Pierre’s application to proceed without paying filing fees incomplete. He had answered only the first part of Question 1 and was required to answer that question in full.
Order
The court ordered Pierre to amend his fee-waiver application and address the deficiencies in his removal notice in writing by December 18, 2023. It also ordered him to show cause by that date why the case should not be remanded to state court for improper removal. The opinion did not itself enter a final remand order. The court noted that a later remand order could require payment of certain costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.